Burton v. Mille Lacs, County of
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:24-cv-04021
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Burton v. County of Mille Lacs, Judge Schiltz dismissed Burton’s complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and granted his application to proceed without prepaying fees.
Jeremy Jantile Burton’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice because the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over his exoneration-compensation claim. His application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee was granted, but he must pay the stated $273.80 balance through the required process. The opinion does not resolve the merits of the compensation claim.
What happened
Jeremy Jantile Burton sued Mille Lacs County, Joe Walsh, Michael Deiter, three unidentified defendants, and the State of Minnesota after his state convictions for criminal sexual conduct and kidnapping were reversed on appeal. He said the legal basis for his lawsuit was Minnesota’s law providing compensation based on exoneration.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint without prejudice. Burton objected, but he did not identify specific errors in that recommendation and instead tried to add facts that were not in his complaint. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his claim for compensation.
In Burton v. County of Mille Lacs, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz overruled Burton’s objection and adopted the recommendation. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, granted Burton’s application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, and ordered him to pay the unpaid balance of the statutory filing fee, listed as $273.80, under the required payment process.
The detailed version
- Burton v. Mille Lacs, County of · No. 0:24-cv-04021
- Patrick Schiltz
- Mar. 11, 2025
Background
Jeremy Jantile Burton brought the action against County of Mille Lacs, Joe Walsh, Michael Deiter, three John Doe defendants, and the State of Minnesota. The opinion says Burton filed the lawsuit after his state convictions for criminal sexual conduct and kidnapping were reversed on appeal.
Burton clarified in his objection that the legal basis for his lawsuit was Minnesota’s Incarceration and Exoneration Remedies Act, including Minnesota Statutes §§ 611.362–.368, and that he sought compensation based on exoneration.
Procedural History and Analysis
The matter came before the court on Burton’s objection to a January 3, 2025, Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois. The recommendation was to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. Burton did not make specific objections to the recommendation. Instead, he attempted to supplement the complaint’s sparse factual allegations. The opinion notes that, even considering those added allegations, Burton still did not specify how the named defendants injured him.
The court conducted a de novo review, meaning it independently reviewed the challenged matter. It overruled Burton’s objection and adopted the recommendation. The court agreed that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Burton’s claim for compensation based on exoneration.
Ruling
Judge Patrick J. Schiltz ordered that Burton’s complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court also GRANTED Burton’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the full filing fee in advance. Burton must pay the unpaid balance of the statutory filing fee, identified as $273.80, through the payment method required by federal law. The opinion does not state any ruling on the underlying merits of Burton’s request for exoneration compensation.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.