Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sorenson v. Sherburne County

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

November 22, 2016

Eric Michael Sorenson, Plaintiff,
v.
Sherburne County, et al., Defendants.

          Eric Michael Sorenson, pro se.

          Ann R. Goering, Esq., Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          ANN D. MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on Plaintiff Eric Michael Sorenson's (“Sorenson”) Appeal of Other Orders and Objections [Docket No. 144] to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois' September 12, 2016 Order and Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 143] (“Order, R&R”). In the Order, R&R, Judge Brisbois denied Sorenson's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [Docket No. 113] and Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and Stay of Pending Matter Before the Court [Docket No. 115], as well as Defendants' Motion to Compel [Docket Np. 137]. Sorenson also filed three motions seeking to strike Defendants' affirmative defenses, and one Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. See [Docket Nos. 71, 74, 79, and 82]. Judge Brisbois recommends denying each Motion as moot. Finally, the Order, R&R recommends granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 85].

         Sorenson first contends that Judge Brisbois' Order denying his Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Sorenson also objects to Judge Brisbois' recommendation to dismiss Sorenson's federal claim and to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. For the reasons set forth below, Sorenson's appeal and objections are overruled.

         II. BACKGROUND

         A. The Complaint

         Sorenson, a patient civilly committed in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (“MSOP”), initiated the present lawsuit on October 21, 2015. Compl. [Docket No. 1]. The factual predicate for Sorenson's lawsuit relates to his two requests for information that were not answered. On November 24, 2013, Sorenson wrote to the Sherburne County Sheriff's Office and requested information pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (“MGDPA”), Minn. Stat. §§ 13.01-13.99. See Compl. Ex. A. Sorenson requested information concerning time he previously spent in the Sherburne County jail. Sorenson asked that the Sheriff's Office, among other things, provide an executive employee flowchart, employee job descriptions, and complaints made about each employee. Sorenson did not receive an answer to this request. See Compl. Sorenson's second request is dated December 9, 2013, and it is identical to his November 24 request. This request was also refused. Id.

         Sorenson alleges that his requests were not answered because of his multiple critiques and complaints made while he was detained in the Sherburne County jail. Id. ¶ 32. Sorenson claims he needs the requested information to bring a lawsuit against Defendants “for unconstitutional conditions of confinement and ultimately to achieve Plaintiff's liberties.” Id. ¶ 39.

         The present lawsuit asserts 10 causes of action, ranging from federal constitutional violations to simple negligence. Id. ¶¶ 65-139. The factual basis for each claim, however, strictly relates back to the two unanswered requests for information.

         B. The Order, R&R

         1. Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint

         Judge Brisbois first addressed Sorenson's Motion for Leave to File an amended Complaint. Sorenson's Proposed Amended Complaint [Docket No. 113 Attach. 1] makes formatting and caption changes and adds 130 new paragraphs of facts and claims, more than doubling the length of the original pleading from 139 paragraphs to 312. Judge Brisbois determined, however, that the Proposed Amended Complaint does not add any ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.