UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                   DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

ANTHONY MOORE,                     Case No. 24-CV-0436 (JWB/JFD)        

              Plaintiff,                                                

v.                              REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION               

MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF                                                 
CORRECTIONS, Employees and                                              
Officials—sued in their individual and                                  
official capacities; and THE BUREAU                                     
OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSIONS, in                                           
Saint Paul, Minnesota—Directors                                         
Employees and Officials sued in their                                   
individual and official capacities,                                     

              Defendants.                                               


   In an Order dated February 20, 2024, this Court directed Plaintiff Anthony Moore 
to pay an initial partial filing fee of at least $1.73 within 21 days, failing which it would be 
recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.  (Dkt. 
No. 4 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).) That deadline has now passed, and Mr. Moore has not 
paid the required initial partial filing fee.  Accordingly, this Court now recommends, 
consistent with the warning previously given to Mr. Moore, that this action be dismissed 
without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See Wewerka v. Roper, 

, 517 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal without prejudice 
pursuant to Rule 41(b) following prisoner’s failure to pay initial partial filing fee). 
   The Court notes, however, that Mr. Moore’s decision not to prosecute this matter 
may be a good outcome for him. As Mr. Moore was advised in the Court’s Order, his 

Complaint (had he elected to prosecute it) is subject to preservice review under 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1915A, which requires the Court to determine whether the pleading states a claim on 
which relief may be granted. Mr. Moore’s Complaint does not state a viable claim for relief. 
Neither of the two agencies of the State of Minnesota named as defendants to this action 
can be sued under 

. See, e.g., Deretich v. Office of Admin. Hearings, State 
of Minn., 

 (8th Cir. 1986). Mr. Moore could sue individual employees 

of  those  agencies  under  § 1983,  but  to  state  a  viable  claim  for  relief  against  those 
employees, Mr. Moore would have to allege what that specific employee did wrong—and 
Mr. Moore’s pleading includes no factual allegations directed at a specific individual. See 
Washington v. Craane, No. 18-CV-1464 (DWF/TNL), 

, at *2 (D. Minn. 
Apr. 18, 2019) (citing Madewell v. Roberts, 

 (8th Cir. 1990) (“Liability 

under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of 
rights.”)). Finally, Mr. Moore’s claim—that the state agencies at issue are treating him 
differently from other prisoners on account of his status as a sex offender—is simply not 
viable no matter whom the claim was pleaded against. “Sex offender” is not a protected 
class under the Constitution.                                             

   If this action were to be dismissed under § 1915A, Mr. Moore would incur a “strike” 
pursuant to 

(g), with three or more such “strikes” resulting in Mr. Moore 
being largely unable to proceed in forma pauperis in federal court for as long as he remains 
a prisoner. The Court would also direct that the $350.00 statutory filing fee be withdrawn 
by prison officials from Mr. Moore’s trust account whenever funds came available to him, 
consistent with § 1915(b)—a financial obligation that would persist for however long it 

took Mr. Moore to pay the statutory fee in full. By electing not to prosecute this action, Mr. 
Moore has avoided these outcomes.                                         

   Based upon the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, 
IT  IS  HEREBY  RECOMMENDED   that  this  action  be  DISMISSED  WITHOUT  
PREJUDICE under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.           

Dated: March 28, 2024           _s/  John F. Docherty________           
                                JOHN F. DOCHERTY                        
                                United States Magistrate Judge          


                           NOTICE                                       

Filing Objections:  This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the 
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. Under D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1), “[a] party may file and serve specific written 
objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days 
after being served with a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond 
to those objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. See D. Minn. 
LR 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set 
forth in LR 72.2(c).                                                      

               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                   DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

ANTHONY MOORE,                     Case No. 24-CV-0436 (JWB/JFD)        

              Plaintiff,                                                

v.                              REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION               

MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF                                                 
CORRECTIONS, Employees and                                              
Officials—sued in their individual and                                  
official capacities; and THE BUREAU                                     
OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSIONS, in                                           
Saint Paul, Minnesota—Directors                                         
Employees and Officials sued in their                                   
individual and official capacities,                                     

              Defendants.                                               


   In an Order dated February 20, 2024, this Court directed Plaintiff Anthony Moore 
to pay an initial partial filing fee of at least $1.73 within 21 days, failing which it would be 
recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.  (Dkt. 
No. 4 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).) That deadline has now passed, and Mr. Moore has not 
paid the required initial partial filing fee.  Accordingly, this Court now recommends, 
consistent with the warning previously given to Mr. Moore, that this action be dismissed 
without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See Wewerka v. Roper, 

, 517 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal without prejudice 
pursuant to Rule 41(b) following prisoner’s failure to pay initial partial filing fee). 
   The Court notes, however, that Mr. Moore’s decision not to prosecute this matter 
may be a good outcome for him. As Mr. Moore was advised in the Court’s Order, his 

Complaint (had he elected to prosecute it) is subject to preservice review under 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1915A, which requires the Court to determine whether the pleading states a claim on 
which relief may be granted. Mr. Moore’s Complaint does not state a viable claim for relief. 
Neither of the two agencies of the State of Minnesota named as defendants to this action 
can be sued under 

. See, e.g., Deretich v. Office of Admin. Hearings, State 
of Minn., 

 (8th Cir. 1986). Mr. Moore could sue individual employees 

of  those  agencies  under  § 1983,  but  to  state  a  viable  claim  for  relief  against  those 
employees, Mr. Moore would have to allege what that specific employee did wrong—and 
Mr. Moore’s pleading includes no factual allegations directed at a specific individual. See 
Washington v. Craane, No. 18-CV-1464 (DWF/TNL), 

, at *2 (D. Minn. 
Apr. 18, 2019) (citing Madewell v. Roberts, 

 (8th Cir. 1990) (“Liability 

under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of 
rights.”)). Finally, Mr. Moore’s claim—that the state agencies at issue are treating him 
differently from other prisoners on account of his status as a sex offender—is simply not 
viable no matter whom the claim was pleaded against. “Sex offender” is not a protected 
class under the Constitution.                                             

   If this action were to be dismissed under § 1915A, Mr. Moore would incur a “strike” 
pursuant to 

(g), with three or more such “strikes” resulting in Mr. Moore 
being largely unable to proceed in forma pauperis in federal court for as long as he remains 
a prisoner. The Court would also direct that the $350.00 statutory filing fee be withdrawn 
by prison officials from Mr. Moore’s trust account whenever funds came available to him, 
consistent with § 1915(b)—a financial obligation that would persist for however long it 

took Mr. Moore to pay the statutory fee in full. By electing not to prosecute this action, Mr. 
Moore has avoided these outcomes.                                         

   Based upon the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, 
IT  IS  HEREBY  RECOMMENDED   that  this  action  be  DISMISSED  WITHOUT  
PREJUDICE under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.           

Dated: March 28, 2024           _s/  John F. Docherty________           
                                JOHN F. DOCHERTY                        
                                United States Magistrate Judge          


                           NOTICE                                       

Filing Objections:  This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the 
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. Under D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1), “[a] party may file and serve specific written 
objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days 
after being served with a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond 
to those objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. See D. Minn. 
LR 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set 
forth in LR 72.2(c).