Ha'Keem et al v. Mesojedec et al

Filing 35

ORDER: (1) "Jimmy Booker" is substituted for "James Booker" in this matter. (2) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 13 ] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (3) Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of this Order. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on January 25, 2017. (CBC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
MAIKIJAH HA’KEEM, ROY HUGHES,
JIMMY BOOKER, 1 and JACQUARD
LARKIN,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 16-CV-348 (JNE/SER)
ORDER

CHAD MESOJEDEC, Rehabilitation
Therapist Director sued in their individual
and official capacities, TROY
BASARABA, Security Manager sued in
their individual and official capacities,
ELIZABETH WYATT, Security Counselor
sued in their individual and official
capacities, KEVIN SCHLERET, Property
Personnel sued in their individual and
official capacities, MANDY TORGERSON,
Property Supervisor sued in their individual
and official capacities, KEVIN MOSER,
MSOP-Moose Lake Facility Director sued
in their individual and official capacities,
and NICK LAMMI, Rehabilitation
Counselor sued in their individual and
official capacities,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the
Honorable Steven E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge, on December 29, 2016. (Dkt. No. 34.)
The R&R recommends denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 13) without prejudice
and granting Plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint. (See Dkt. No. 34.) Neither party objected
to the R&R. Nevertheless, the Court conducted a de novo review of the record. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3).

1

In accordance with this Order, “Jimmy Booker” is substituted for “James Booker.”
1

Plaintiffs did not formally move for leave to amend the Complaint, but expressed a desire
to amend in lieu of dismissal. (See Dkt. No. 23 at 12, 16, 18.) The R&R considered this desire an
implied motion for leave to amend. (See Dkt. No. 34 at 5.) A court “should freely grant leave [to
amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Although the Court is well within its
discretion to deny informal requests for leave to amend stated in opposition to a motion to
dismiss, see U.S. ex. rel. Roop v. Hypoguard USA, Inc., 559 F.3d 818, 822-23 (8th Cir. 2009),
the Court agrees that providing Plaintiffs leave to amend in this case will fulfill the purposes of
the Federal Rules and facilitate a proper decision on the merits, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
178, 182 (1962). Thus, the Court accepts the R&R’s recommended disposition.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

“Jimmy Booker” is substituted for “James Booker” in this matter.

2.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 13] is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

3.

Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of
this Order.

Dated: January 25, 2017.
s/Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge

2