Gozo v. DHS
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:24-cv-01389
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Judge Menendez dismissed Gozo v. DHS’s second amended complaint, with some claims without prejudice and others with prejudice.
Makusha Gozo’s second amended complaint was dismissed in separate parts: some claims and defendant-specific claims were dismissed without prejudice, specified statutory claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the remaining state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice. His two applications to proceed without paying filing fees were denied as moot.
What happened
In Makusha Gozo v. DHS, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended dismissing Mr. Gozo’s second amended complaint. Mr. Gozo did not object by the deadline.
The court accepted the recommendation after finding no clear error. It dismissed some claims without prejudice, including claims against several defendants, claims under specified civil-rights laws and constitutional amendments, and the remaining state-law claims. It dismissed other statutory claims with prejudice and denied two applications to proceed without paying filing fees as moot.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez entered the order and directed that judgment be entered. The case was resolved through the listed dismissals rather than a decision on the merits of the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Gozo v. DHS · No. 0:24-cv-01389
- Katherine Menendez
- June 26, 2024
Background
On May 31, 2024, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of Makusha Gozo’s second amended complaint. Gozo did not object by the June 14, 2024 deadline. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.
The court stated that it reviewed the recommendation and the record, found no error, and accepted the recommendation.
Rulings
The court ordered the following:
- The Report and Recommendation was accepted.
- The second amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction to the extent it sought claims against the Department of Homeland Security, “Secretary Mayorkas,” the State of Minnesota, and “Governor Walz.”
- The second amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice as duplicative to the extent it sought claims against Eric Tollefson in his official capacity.
- The second amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim to the extent it asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 or under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
- The second amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim to the extent it asserted claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, 42 U.S.C. § 1997d, and 34 U.S.C. §
- 6. The remaining state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice.
- Gozo’s two applications to proceed without paying filing fees were denied as moot.
Effect of the Order
The order dismissed the second amended complaint on jurisdictional and pleading grounds, including lack of jurisdiction, duplicative claims, and failure to state a claim. It did not decide the underlying merits of the claims. Judge Katherine M. Menendez directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.