Linehan v. Minnesota State Legislators

Background

The court considered Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko’s October 23, 2024 Report and Recommendation. Judge Micko recommended dismissing Dennis D. Linehan’s amended complaint and denying his requests for injunctive relief, referral to the Federal Bar Association’s Pro Se Project, permission to file a second amended complaint, and permission to proceed without paying filing fees.

The recommendation identified four grounds for dismissal: (1) Linehan could not bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against state agencies; (2) his monetary § 1983 claims against individuals based on his civil confinement were barred by Heck v. Humphrey because he remained subject to a valid civil commitment order; (3) his claims challenging the constitutionality of the Minnesota Civil Commitment and Treatment Act were barred by claim preclusion, meaning that an earlier case prevented relitigating them; and (4) his claims alleging constitutionally inadequate medical care against individuals in their individual and official capacities did not state a plausible claim for relief.

Judge Micko also recommended denying leave to file a second amended complaint because it largely repeated the existing claims without correcting their defects. The recommendation also addressed new allegations in the proposed complaint and concluded that the proposed amendments would be futile.

Objections and Additional Filings

Linehan timely objected to the recommendation. The district court treated his objections as challenging the entire recommendation and reviewed it from the beginning. The court concluded that the recommendation contained no error, overruled the objections, and accepted the recommendation in full.

After the recommendation issued, Linehan moved for permission to file a third amended complaint. The court denied that motion because the proposed amendments had the same deficiencies identified in the recommendation concerning the proposed second amended complaint.

Linehan also filed notices described as interlocutory appeals of the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court explained that such an appeal required certification by the district court involving a controlling legal question, substantial grounds for disagreement, and a likelihood that certification would materially advance the case. No certification had been requested or granted. The court therefore stated that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit lacked jurisdiction over those interlocutory appeals and denied assumed requests to proceed without paying filing fees for them, finding the appeals frivolous and not taken in good faith. The court stated that Linehan could request that status if he appealed the May 7, 2025 order.

Ruling

Judge Katherine M. Menendez ordered the following:

The order directed that judgment be entered.