Jones v. Hennepin County Medical Center

Background

Jeffrey Lee Jones sued Hennepin County Medical Center and several individuals and entities. The opinion states that Jones alleged that part of one of his lungs was surgically removed because of either a mix-up with another patient who had the same name or intentional retaliation by his doctor. Jones also alleged that the surgery led to a second heart surgery and false criminal charges. He asserted that doctors, investigating police officers, and various state and federal court personnel were connected and conspired in these events.

The operative complaint was Jones’s Second Amended Complaint. The opinion notes that several defendants appearing on the docket were not defendants in that complaint. Jones did not object to their omission or to the alternative conclusion that his claims against them were legally frivolous. The court therefore dismissed any claims against those defendants to the extent such claims appeared in Jones’s filings.

Report and Recommendation and Requests

Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson recommended dismissing the amended complaint for failure to state a federal claim and declining supplemental jurisdiction over possible state-law claims. Jones asked the court to consolidate this case with another case he had filed. The court applied the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rather than Minnesota procedural rules and denied consolidation.

Jones also submitted emails asking Magistrate Judge Thorson and Clerk of Court Kate Fogarty to recuse themselves because of alleged conflicts of interest. The court found that request unsupported by law or facts and denied it. Jones did not make substantive or specific objections to the recommendation beyond repeating or slightly expanding factual allegations, so the court conducted the required review and adopted the recommendation.

Federal Claims

Jones cited 18 U.S.C. § 113. That statute criminalizes assaults within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. The court concluded that the alleged events occurred at medical facilities in Minnesota and therefore did not fall within that jurisdiction. The court also concluded that § 113 does not create a private cause of action, meaning it does not authorize a private person to bring a civil lawsuit based on the statute. The court dismissed this claim with prejudice.

Jones also cited 18 U.S.C. § 609 in emails to the court. The opinion explains that this statute concerns using military authority to influence or require a member of the Armed Forces to vote and is inapplicable to Jones’s claims. If Jones instead meant Minnesota Statute Title 609, the court stated that it comprises Minnesota’s criminal code and likewise does not provide a cause of action for a federal civil lawsuit. The court dismissed this claim with prejudice.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation, denied Jones’s request to consolidate the cases, and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice as to the purported federal claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 113 and 609. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice. The court also denied Jones’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot. Judge Paul A. Magnuson ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.