Lee v. United States of America and Director of the Minnesota Bureau of…

Background

Plaintiff Abraham Sigurd Lee, proceeding without a lawyer (pro se), filed a complaint seeking monetary relief against the United States of America and the Director of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). His primary legal vehicle was the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), a federal statute that permits certain lawsuits against the United States government for tortious (wrongful) conduct by federal employees. The case was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard for initial review.

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

Because Lee was a prisoner at the time of filing, the case was subject to mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), a statute requiring courts to dismiss prisoner complaints that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On September 18, 2025, Magistrate Judge Bullard issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal of the case in its entirety. The R&R also addressed the filing fee: because Lee was a prisoner, it recommended he be ordered to pay the unpaid $350 filing fee balance in installments from his prison account as provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Lee did not file timely objections to the R&R.

On the civil-rights claims, the R&R noted that liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — the federal statute allowing civil-rights suits against state and local officials acting under color of state law — requires a plaintiff to allege a causal link and direct responsibility by the individual defendant for the deprivation of rights (citing Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990)). The R&R found that Lee did not plausibly allege that the BCA Director personally acted wrongfully.

Change in Lee's Custody Status

Between the issuance of the R&R and the court's ruling, Lee was released from prison (Notice of Change of Address, December 10, 2025). This affected the fee collection mechanism: while the court still directed Lee to pay the $350 balance, it determined that the installment-from-prison-account mechanism under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) no longer applied, since Lee is no longer a prisoner. The Clerk of Court was instead directed simply to notify Lee of the payment obligation.

Motion to Amend the Complaint

On October 8, 2026, Lee filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, seeking to substitute 'BCA MN Employees John Doe/Jane Doe' for the named BCA Director defendant.

Judge Tunheim denied this motion on two independent grounds:

Procedural Deficiency Local Rule 15.1(b) of the District of Minnesota requires any motion to amend a pleading to be accompanied by: (1) a copy of the proposed amended pleading, and (2) a version showing — through redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or similar methods — how the proposed amendment differs from the original. Lee submitted neither. Although courts must liberally construe pro se plaintiffs' filings, pro se litigants are still required to comply with substantive and procedural rules (Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)). This failure alone was a sufficient independent basis to deny the motion under Local Rules 1.3 and 7.1(g).

Futility Even if the procedural deficiency were overlooked, the proposed amendment would be futile. Lee's proposed substitution of unnamed BCA employees for the named Director did not cure the core deficiency identified in the R&R: he still failed to plausibly allege that any BCA employee — named or unnamed — personally and directly acted wrongfully to deprive him of his rights, as required for § 1983 liability. Under Eighth Circuit precedent, a court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile (Moses.com Sec., Inc. v. Comprehensive Software Sys., Inc., 406 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2005)).

Disposition

Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.