Burton v. Mille Lacs, County of
Burton v. Mille Lacs, County of
Trial Court Opinion
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 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.
1Even 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 A : CN CS Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge United States District Court 3-
Trial Court Opinion
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 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.
1Even 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 A : CN CS Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge United States District Court 3-
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.