Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA JEREMY JANTILE BURTON, Case No. 24-CV-4021 (PJS/LIB) Plaintiff, v. ORDER COUNTY OF MILLE LACS; JOE WALSH; MICHAEL DEITER, tribal police; 3 JOHN DOES; STATE OF MINNESOTA,
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 *2 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. *3 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
NOTES
[1] Even considering these additional allegations, Burton still fails to specify how exactly the named plaintiffs injured him.