Burton v Mille Lacs, County of, Et Al

Filing 14

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 8] is GRANTED. a. Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance ($273.80) of the statutory filing fee in the manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1 915(b)(2). b. The Clerk of Court is directed to provide notice of this requirement to the authorities at the institution where plaintiff is confined. 2. The complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Adopt Report and Recommendation 11 Report and Recommendation. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion) Signed by Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 3/11/2025. (KAD) cc: Prison Authorities, FCI Florence. Modified text on 3/11/2025 (MMG).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JEREMY JANTILE BURTON,

Case No. 24-CV-4021 (PJS/LIB)

Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF MILLE LACS; JOE WALSH;
MICHAEL DEITER, tribal police; 3 JOHN
DOES; STATE OF MINNESOTA,

ORDER

Defendants.
Plaintiff Jeremy Burton brought this lawsuit against defendants after his state
convictions of criminal sexual conduct and kidnapping were reversed on appeal. See
Minnesota v. Burton, No. A21-1272, 2022 WL 6272047, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 10,
2022). The matter is before the Court on Burton’s objection to the January 3, 2025,
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois. Judge
Brisbois recommends dismissing the complaint without prejudice. After conducting a
de novo review, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court overrules the
objection and adopts the R&R.
Burton does not make any specific objections to the R&R. See LR 72.2(b)(1).
Instead, the objection (improperly) attempts to supplement the sparse factual

allegations in the complaint.1 Burton does make clear, however, that “the legal basis”
for this action is Minnesota’s Incarceration and Exoneration Remedies Act, Minn. Stat.
§§ 611.362–.368. See, e.g., Obj. at 2, ECF No. 12 (“The legal basis of Mr. Burton’s lawsuit
falls under the Order Determination Eligibility for Compensation Based on Exoneration
Minnesota statute §590.11.”); Obj. at 5 (“The Plaintiff is seeking . . . compensation based
on his exoneration under Minnesota incarceration and exoneration remedies act
(Minnesota statute 611.362 to 611.368).”). As the R&R points out, the Court lacks
jurisdiction to entertain Burton’s exoneration-compensation claim. Burton’s complaint
is therefore dismissed without prejudice.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 8] is
GRANTED.
a.

Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance ($273.80) of the statutory
filing fee in the manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

b.

The Clerk of Court is directed to provide notice of this requirement
to the authorities at the institution where plaintiff is confined.

1

Even considering these additional allegations, Burton still fails to specify how
exactly the named plaintiffs injured him.
-2-

2.

The complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 11, 2025

Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge
United States District Court

-3-