United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Michael Sorenson, pro se.
Goering, Esq., Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A.,
Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
The Order, R&R
Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint
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 ...