Burdunice v. Mjanger

Background

Plaintiff Lannon Lavar Burdunice filed his original complaint on November 7, 2025, asserting civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — the federal statute allowing individuals to sue state officials for violations of constitutional rights — against four defendants: Siv Mjanger, a state court judge who presided over Burdunice's habeas petition; Teresa Underwood, a court administrator; Warden William Bolin; and Commissioner Paul Schnell.

Burdunice's claims arose from a state court habeas petition he filed in April 2025 challenging his conviction on charges of second-degree intentional murder and unlawful firearm possession. He alleged that Judge Mjanger scheduled a hearing on the habeas petition, then canceled it (after Bolin and Schnell filed a motion to cancel), and ultimately denied the petition — depriving him of a meaningful opportunity to challenge his conviction. He asserted Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process and equal protection violations and sought declaratory judgment, an injunction compelling an evidentiary hearing, punitive damages of $1,000 against Judge Mjanger under Minnesota law, $70,000 in compensatory damages "from the State," and fees and costs.

Prior Report and Recommendation

On December 19, 2025, Magistrate Judge Foster issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal of the original complaint on several grounds:

- Eleventh Amendment bar: Official-capacity claims for monetary damages were recommended for dismissal because the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars federal suits for damages against states. - Rooker-Feldman doctrine: The injunctive relief claims against most defendants were recommended for dismissal under this jurisdictional rule, which bars federal district courts from reviewing or overturning final state court judgments. - Statutory bar on injunctive relief: The injunctive relief claim against Judge Mjanger was recommended for dismissal as barred by the text of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 itself. - Judicial and quasi-judicial immunity: Individual-capacity claims against Judge Mjanger and Teresa Underwood were recommended for dismissal on immunity grounds — doctrines protecting judges and court staff from personal liability for acts taken in their official roles. - Procedural due process: Claims against Schnell and Bolin were recommended for dismissal because their motion to cancel the hearing was found to be a proper exercise of the judicial process. - Equal protection: Claims against Schnell and Bolin were recommended for dismissal because Burdunice neither alleged discrimination based on membership in a protected class nor alleged facts supporting a viable "class of one" theory.

Burdunice filed objections to the R&R on January 9, 2026; those objections remained pending at the time of this order.

The Motion to Amend

On February 6, 2026, Burdunice moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) for leave to file an amended complaint, stating he sought to address "vulnerabilities" identified in the R&R. He identified four concerns: (1) potential dismissal on Eleventh Amendment grounds; (2) risk of misconstruction as asserting only official-capacity claims; (3) potential dismissal based on immunity doctrines; and (4) imprecision in the original complaint. Defendants opposed the motion on the sole ground that the proposed amendment was futile.

Legal Standard

Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires," but there is no absolute right to amend. Courts may deny leave for reasons including undue delay, bad faith, prejudice to the opposing party, or futility. An amendment is futile when the proposed amended complaint could not survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) — which requires the complaint to allege sufficient facts, accepted as true, to state a plausible claim for relief. Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 850 (8th Cir. 2010); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Analysis and Ruling

Magistrate Judge Foster found the proposed amended complaint futile on all asserted grounds.

Capacity Clarifications

Burdunice argued the amended complaint was needed to clarify that he was suing defendants in both their individual and official capacities. The proposed amendment added language to that effect. The court found this addition of no consequence because the R&R had already expressly considered individual-capacity claims against each defendant and recommended their dismissal.

No New Facts

Burdunice argued the amended complaint would correct vulnerabilities related to immunity doctrines and cure imprecision. The court found, however, that the proposed amended complaint added no new facts whatsoever. The one apparent addition — alleging that Underwood "effectuated" the cancellation of the habeas hearing — was already effectively present in the original complaint, which alleged Underwood was responsible for ensuring court orders were executed properly. Rather than new facts, the proposed amended complaint added legal arguments and citations contending why immunity doctrines should not apply. The court noted that such legal arguments are properly raised in an objection to the R&R, not in an amended pleading.

Because the proposed amended complaint added no new facts that would allow it to survive a motion to dismiss, the court denied the Motion to Amend as futile.