Burdunice v. Mjanger
Lannon Lavar Burdunice v. Siv Mjanger, Teresa Underwood, Paul Schnell and William Bolin
- John Tunheim
- 0:25-cv-04276
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Lannon Lavar Burdunice v. Siv Mjanger, Teresa Underwood, Paul Schnell and William Bolin, Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster denied plaintiff Burdunice's motion to amend his civil rights complaint because the proposed amendment added no new facts and would still fail as a matter of law.
Lannon Lavar Burdunice, a prisoner litigating pro se (representing himself) who sought to challenge the handling of his state court habeas petition in federal court; and the named government defendants — a state court judge, a court administrator, the state corrections commissioner, and a prison warden.
What happened
In Lannon Lavar Burdunice v. Siv Mjanger, Teresa Underwood, Paul Schnell and William Bolin (Case No. 25-cv-4276), Lannon Lavar Burdunice is a prisoner who filed a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — a federal law that allows people to sue government officials for violating their constitutional rights. He alleged that a state court judge, a court administrator, a prison warden, and the state corrections commissioner violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to fair procedure and equal treatment in connection with a state court petition he filed to challenge his conviction for second-degree intentional murder and unlawful firearm possession. Specifically, he claimed that a hearing on his challenge was scheduled and then canceled, and that the petition was later denied without him having a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
A prior report issued by the court recommended dismissing Burdunice's original complaint on several grounds: that the Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts from awarding money damages against state officials sued in their official capacity; that a federal law shields judges from being sued for injunctive relief under § 1983; that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine — a rule preventing federal courts from effectively overturning state court decisions — blocked his claims for injunctive relief against the other defendants; that Judge Mjanger and court administrator Underwood were protected by judicial and quasi-judicial immunity; and that his equal protection claims lacked sufficient factual support. Burdunice filed a motion asking the court for permission to file an amended complaint, saying the changes would fix these weaknesses.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster denied the motion to amend, finding that the proposed amendment would be futile — meaning it still could not survive a motion to dismiss even if allowed. The court explained that the proposed amended complaint added no new facts; it only added legal arguments and labels, such as declaring that defendants were being sued in both their individual and official capacities and citing legal authority against immunity doctrines. The court noted that the prior report had already considered individual-capacity claims and recommended dismissal, and that legal arguments belong in objections to the report, not in an amended complaint. Because no new facts were offered that could change the outcome, the motion was denied.
The detailed version
- Lannon Lavar Burdunice v. Siv Mjanger, Teresa Underwood, Paul Schnell and William Bolin, Case No. 25-cv-4276 (JRT/DJF), United States District Court, District of Minnesota
- Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster
- February 19, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Lannon Lavar Burdunice, a prisoner convicted of second-degree intentional murder and unlawful firearm possession, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 7, 2025. His complaint arose from a state court habeas corpus petition (a legal challenge to the lawfulness of his imprisonment) he filed in April 2025. The defendants are: Siv Mjanger, the state court judge assigned to the habeas matter; Teresa Underwood, a court administrator; Paul Schnell, the Commissioner of Corrections; and William Bolin, the prison warden. Burdunice alleged that Judge Mjanger scheduled a hearing on his habeas petition, that Schnell and Bolin filed a motion to cancel that hearing, and that Judge Mjanger then canceled the hearing and denied the petition — depriving him of a meaningful opportunity to challenge his conviction. He brought two constitutional claims: (1) violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's procedural due process guarantee, and (2) violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. He sought a declaratory judgment, an injunction compelling an evidentiary hearing, punitive damages of $1,000 against Judge Mjanger under a Minnesota statute, $70,000 in compensatory damages from the State, and fees and costs.
Prior Proceedings
On December 19, 2025, the court issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal on multiple grounds: (1) the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages against states in federal court, precluding official-capacity monetary claims; (2) injunctive relief against Judge Mjanger is statutorily barred under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine — which prohibits federal district courts from reviewing or overturning final state court judgments — barred injunctive relief claims against the remaining defendants; (4) individual-capacity claims against Judge Mjanger and Underwood were barred by judicial and quasi-judicial immunity; (5) due process claims against Schnell and Bolin failed because filing a motion to cancel a hearing is a proper use of the judicial process; and (6) the equal protection claims against Schnell and Bolin failed because Burdunice did not allege membership in a protected class or facts supporting a 'class of one' theory. Burdunice filed objections to the R&R on January 9, 2026, which remained pending at the time of this order.
Motion to Amend
On February 6, 2026, Burdunice moved for leave to amend his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which provides that leave to amend 'shall be freely given when justice so requires.' He stated the amendment was intended to address 'vulnerabilities' identified in the R&R, specifically: potential dismissal on Eleventh Amendment grounds, potential misconstruction of claims as official-capacity only, dismissal based on immunity doctrines, and imprecision. The proposed amended complaint added declarations that defendants were sued in both individual and official capacities, added a statement that Underwood 'effectuated' the cancellation of the habeas hearing, and added legal arguments and citations challenging the applicability of immunity doctrines. Defendants opposed the motion, arguing the proposed amendment was futile.
Legal Standard
A motion to amend may be denied when, among other reasons, the proposed amendment would be futile — i.e., the amended complaint would still fail to survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally plausible claim for relief. (Citing Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 850 (8th Cir. 2010); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).)
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Foster denied the motion to amend as futile. The court found that the proposed amended complaint added no new facts. The added capacity declarations were immaterial because the R&R had already expressly considered and recommended dismissal of individual-capacity claims. The allegation that Underwood 'effectuated' the cancellation was already effectively present in the original complaint and had been considered. The legal arguments added to the proposed amended complaint — challenging the applicability of immunity doctrines — were not properly asserted in a pleading; they were appropriately raised in Burdunice's objections to the R&R. Because no new facts were added that could alter the court's prior analysis, the amended complaint could not survive a motion to dismiss, rendering the amendment futile.
Disposition
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 21) DENIED. The objections to the prior Report and Recommendation remain pending before the district court.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.