Sailee v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
- Ann Montgomery
- 0:24-cv-04345
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Sailee v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Judge Montgomery dismissed Sailee’s complaint without prejudice, denied counsel, and denied his fee-waiver application.
Gustry Leshan Sailee, whose complaint was dismissed without prejudice and whose requests for appointed counsel and permission to proceed without paying filing fees were denied.
What happened
In Sailee v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Gustry Leshan Sailee, representing himself, sued the Minnesota Department of Human Services and other defendants over his ongoing civil-commitment proceedings in Minnesota state court.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint without prejudice because it did not state a claim for relief and because a legal rule generally prevents federal courts from interfering with ongoing state proceedings. Sailee objected to that recommendation and asked the court to appoint a lawyer.
After reviewing the objections, Judge Ann D. Montgomery overruled them and adopted the recommendation. Judge Montgomery dismissed the case without prejudice under the federal statute governing screening of certain complaints, denied Sailee’s request for a lawyer, and denied his application to proceed without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Sailee v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · No. 0:24-cv-04345
- Ann Montgomery
- Jan. 17, 2025
Background
Gustry Leshan Sailee filed a complaint against the Minnesota Department of Human Services, AMRTC, State Operated Services and Facilities, government entities, Mary F. Moriarty’s Hennepin County Attorney Office, and several named and unnamed individuals. The opinion states that Sailee’s claims attacked the lawfulness of his ongoing civil-commitment proceedings in Minnesota state court. Sailee proceeded without a lawyer.
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung recommended that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice. The recommendation stated that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and that the Younger abstention doctrine applied. That doctrine generally limits federal-court interference with certain ongoing state-court proceedings. Sailee objected to the recommendation and separately moved for appointment of counsel.
Court’s analysis
The district court reviewed the challenged portions of the report and recommendation independently, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The court agreed with the report and recommendation and concluded that dismissal was warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the statute governing screening of certain complaints filed by people seeking to proceed without paying filing fees.
The opinion does not provide additional analysis of the specific claims in the complaint. It states that dismissal was proper for the reasons given in the report and recommendation, including failure to state a claim and application of the Younger abstention doctrine.
Ruling
Judge Ann D. Montgomery ordered the following:
- Sailee’s objection to Magistrate Judge Leung’s report and recommendation was overruled. - The report and recommendation was adopted. - Sailee’s motion to appoint counsel was denied. - The matter was dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). - Sailee’s application to proceed without paying filing fees was denied.
The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.