United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Kevin Hazley, Pro S.
Forrest, Esq. for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court for consideration of the
objections of Defendants Tom Roy and Becky Dooley [Doc. No.
45] (“Defs.' Objs.”) to the November 2, 2017
Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 43]
(“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung.
The magistrate judge recommended granting in part and denying
in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 13];
denying Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed with Complaint
[Doc. No. 23]; and granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint [Doc. No. 26].
to statute, this Court reviews de novo any portion of the
magistrate judge's opinion on dispositive motions to
which specific objections are made, and “may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations” contained in that opinion. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). The magistrate judge also
recommended rulings on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the
Complaint, a non-dispositive motion. Ordinarily, a district
court reviews a magistrate's order on a non-dispositive
motion under a clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard.
Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F.Supp.2d
1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); D. Minn. LR 72.2(a).
However, when a motion to amend is denied as futile, as is
the case here, it is reviewed de novo. See United States
ex rel. Gaudineer & Comito, L.L.P. v. Iowa, 269 F.3d
932, 936 (8th Cir. 2001) (noting that the district
court's denial of leave to amend based on futility was
reviewed de novo on appeal). As a result, based on a de novo
review and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court
overrules Defendants' objections and adopts the R&R,
with some clarification and further direction to the parties.
R&R sets forth the facts relevant to this matter.
(See R&R at 2-6.)Accordingly, to avoid unnecessary
repetition, the Court will incorporate the facts of the
R&R's background section by reference here, and it
will briefly set forth only those facts necessary to provide
context for its discussion of the Defendants' objections.
Glenn Kevin Hazley (“Hazley”) brings this '
1983 action against Becky Dooley, Warden of the Minnesota
Correctional Facility located in Moose Lake, Minnesota
(“MCF-Moose Lake”), and Tom Roy, Commissioner of
the Minnesota Department of Corrections (“DOC”).
In his Amended Complaint,  Hazley alleges that MCF-Moose Lake
staff “denied [me] an opportunity to bail out from jail
after my case was overturned by the courts May 2016,
MCF-Moose Lake purposely held my money so I could not post my
bail.” (Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 8], at 4.) He further
I was held illegally until the day of my trial which was in
July 2015 [sic]. So I claim negligence by Becky Dooley
because she was in charge of my custody as acting Warden at
MCF-Moose Lake at the time of the incident and Commissioner
Tom Roy, because he is the boss of Ms. Dooley and as well in
charge of my custody as stated by law in MN.
(Id.) Hazley states that he is “seeking
monetary damages for the civil rights [violations] that have
occurred.” (Id. at 5.)
their Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss and
supporting documents, Defendants state that Hazley pleaded
guilty to a count of burglary in Hennepin County District
Court. State v. Hazley, No. 27-CR-14-25709 (Hennepin
Cnty. Dist. Ct.) (Kemp Aff. [Doc. No. 15], Ex. A [Doc. No.
15-1]). Hazley's sentence was initially stayed, but he
was incarcerated upon violating the terms of his probation.
(Id.) He appealed. On March 14, 2016, the Minnesota
Court of Appeals reversed his original conviction, finding an
error in the sentence, and remanded the case to the district
court. State v. Hazley, No. A15-1418 (Minn.Ct.App.
Mar. 14, 2016) (Kemp Aff., Ex. B). Six weeks later, at a
hearing in the district court, Hazley was allowed to withdraw
his guilty plea. The Court then set interim conditions of
release, which included, inter alia, posting a bond
of “$8, 000 bond w/cond. or $800 cash alternative with
conditions.” (Kemp Aff., Ex. B, at 4, 6.)
also filed numerous documents that were incorporated by
reference in the Amended Complaint. Accepting the facts asserted
in the Amended Complaint and the incorporated documents as
true, and construing them in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiff, Hazley appears to have made every effort to pay
the $800 cash alternative bond. The record at this stage,
however, shows no indication of what happened to the funds.
Hennepin County District Court does not appear to have ever
received the funds. Hazley remained in custody until he went
to trial. He was tried and convicted, served his sentence,
and, since the inception of this case, has been released. He
brings this action to recover monetary damages from his
alleged wrongful imprisonment and the mental distress it has
Roy and Dooley moved to dismiss “all claims against
them” under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), claiming that the
Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss of
Defs. Tom Roy & Becky Dooley [Doc. No. 14]
(“Defs.' Mem. in Supp.”), at 1.)
response to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Hazley
filed two documents titled as motions. First, he filed a
“Motion to Proceed with Complaint, ” along with a
memorandum in support [Doc. Nos. 23-24]. The magistrate judge
properly construed these filings as a response to the Motion
Hazley filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint, seeking to
clarify that his claims against Roy and Dooley were being
brought in both their official and individual capacities
[Doc. No 26]. Additionally, in his Motion to Amend,
Hazley sought to add a third defendant, Kristi Cisar, in both
her official and individual capacities. (Id. at 2.)
Ms. Cisar is an employee at MCF-Moose Lake, and was in direct
contact with Hazley, his attorney, and his family members
about the status of the funds in his prisoner account.
(Id.) Hazley's memorandum in support of his
Motion to Amend claims that he did not learn of Ms.
Cisar's name until after the filing of his Amended
Complaint. (Id.) Finally, Hazley, in his Proposed
Second Amended Complaint as well as in his Motion to Proceed
with Complaint [Doc. No. 25] also appears to be adding a
state tort claim for false imprisonment. (See Prop.
Second Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 26-1], at 3.)
response to the Motion to Amend, Defendants argued that the
motion should be dismissed for failure to comply with the
Court's rules (by not attaching a redlined copy showing
the changes between the original and proposed complaints) and
because the proposed amendments are futile. The defendants
specifically address “the additional defendant”
in Plaintiff's Proposed Second Amended Complaint, arguing
that the additional defendant “fails to remedy”
the alleged deficiencies of the Complaint “and
therefore is futile.” (Defs.' Responsive Mem. to
Pl.'s Mot. to Amend the Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 29]
(“Defs.' Mem. in Opp'n”), at 3.)
The Report and Recommendation
Judge Leung recommended that this Court grant the Motion to
Dismiss the claims against all defendants in their official
capacities and the claims against Commissioner Roy in his
individual capacity. He further recommended that this Court
deny the Motion to Dismiss as to the proposed claims against
Warden Dooley in her individual capacity and the proposed
claims against Kristi Cisar in her individual capacity. The
magistrate judge also recommended that Plaintiff's Motion
to Amend be granted as to claims against Warden Dooley and
Kristi Cisar in their individual ...