Lundeen v. City of Minneapolis
- John Tunheim
- 0:24-cv-04360
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Lundeen v. City of Minneapolis, Judge Tunheim granted judgment on the pleadings, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and denied the application to proceed without prepaying fees as moot.
Bruce A. Lundeen’s lawsuit against the City of Minneapolis was dismissed with prejudice, and his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied as moot.
What happened
In Lundeen v. City of Minneapolis, Bruce A. Lundeen alleged that an unidentified young man injected him while he was a patient at Methodist Hospital. Lundeen believed the man worked for the Minneapolis Police Department and alleged that he later developed kidney stones, but his complaint did not identify a legal claim or request specific relief.
The City asked for judgment on the pleadings. The court treated that request under the same standard used for a motion to dismiss and concluded that, even when the allegations were viewed in Lundeen’s favor, the complaint did not state a claim for which relief could be granted. The court also noted that it would not create a claim for him from the pleadings.
Judge Tunheim granted the City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Lundeen’s complaint with prejudice. The court also denied as moot Lundeen’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs.
The detailed version
- Lundeen v. City of Minneapolis · No. 0:24-cv-04360
- John Tunheim
- May 13, 2025
Background
Bruce A. Lundeen sued the City of Minneapolis. He alleged that, while he was a patient at Methodist Hospital, an unidentified young man gave him an injection that was not recorded in his medical chart. Lundeen was unsure who the man was but theorized that he worked for the Minneapolis Police Department. Lundeen alleged that he later developed kidney stones from the injection.
The court observed that Lundeen’s complaint did not state any legal claims or include a request for relief. Lundeen represented himself. The City moved for judgment on the pleadings and asked the court to dismiss the action with prejudice.
Court’s analysis
A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is reviewed under the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true, views the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and asks whether it states a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief and a demand for the relief sought. Although courts read complaints filed without a lawyer liberally, they do not have to create a claim on a party’s behalf. The court concluded that, even drawing all reasonable inferences in Lundeen’s favor, his complaint stated no claim for which relief could be granted.
The court also noted that Lundeen’s deadline to amend his pleadings had passed. It stated that his later motion to rename defendants, even if treated as properly and timely filed, did not correct the deficiencies because it still stated no claim and requested no relief.
Ruling
Judge John R. Tunheim ordered:
- The City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was GRANTED.
- Lundeen’s complaint was DISMISSED with prejudice.
- Lundeen’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs was DENIED as moot.
The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.