Moore v. Warden et al
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint is GRANTED 23 , and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot 14 . Defendants have 14 days from the filing of this Order to answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint. (Written Opinion) Signed by The Hon. Paul A. Magnuson on 12/27/2016. (LLM) cc: William Moore. Modified text on 12/27/2016 (ACH).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Case No. 16-cv-709 (PAM/SER)
Warden, Duluth Federal
Prison Camp, et al.,
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend Complaint. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
Complaint is granted and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot.
On August 14, 2013, Plaintiff fractured his right knee while imprisoned at the
federal prison in Sandstone, Minnesota.
Following the injury, several orthopedic
surgeons recommended that Plaintiff undergo knee-replacement surgery. The Federal
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) requires potential surgical patients to have a Body Mass
Index (“BMI”) less than 35. Because Plaintiff had a BMI greater than 35, Defendants
refused to permit Plaintiff to receive the knee-replacement surgery.
On March 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant action as a Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claiming that Defendants are violating his Eighth
Amendment rights. Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau subsequently ordered Plaintiff to
submit an Amended Complaint, properly bringing his claim as a Bivens action. On May
6, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint titled “Addendum to Motion 2241” that merely
included the names of several other Defendants that Plaintiff alleges unconstitutionally
denied him his knee-replacement surgery. On October 11, Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss arguing that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
Without responding to that Motion, Plaintiff filed another Motion to Amend
Complaint on November 2. Plaintiff attached his proposed Second Amended Complaint
which adds two new Defendants and properly brings his claim as a Bivens action. In
response, Defendants otherwise consent to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint,
but argue that adding the two new Defendants would be futile because the Court does not
have personal jurisdiction over them. Although Defendants provide a declaration from
an attorney with the BOP stating that the two new Defendants do not live or work in
Minnesota, this information is insufficient for the Court to determine whether the new
Defendants have the requisite “minimum contacts” with Minnesota. Digi-Tel Holdings,
Inc. v. Proteq Telecommunications (PTE), Ltd., 89 F.3d 519, 522 (8th Cir. 1996)
(quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
Complaint (Docket No. 23) is GRANTED and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket
No. 14) is DENIED as moot. Defendants have fourteen days from the filing of this
Order to answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint.
Dated: December 27, 2016
s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?