Lee v. United States of America, The et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Abraham Sigurd Lee, 6116 Winnetka Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN
55428, pro se Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Abraham Sigurd Lee filed a complaint seeking monetary relief pursuant to
the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). 	The matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard. On September 18, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the matter be dismissed with
prejudice in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). (R&R, Sept. 18, 2026, Docket
No. 3.) No timely objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.
At the time the R&R was issued, Lee was a prisoner and so remained responsible
for the statutory filing fee for this litigation. 	The Magistrate Judge had, therefore,
recommended that “Lee be directed to pay the unpaid balance ($350.00) of the statutory
filing fee for this action in the manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), and the Clerk
ABRAHAM SIGURD LEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and
DIRECTOR OF THE MINNESOTA BUREAU
OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION,
Defendants.
Civil No. 25-3554 (JRT/EMB)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING
MOTION TO AMEND PLEADINGS
CASE 0:25-cv-03554-JRT-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 4

-2-
of Court be directed to provide notice of this requirement to the authorities at the
institution where Lee is confined.” (R&R at 6.) Lee has subsequently been released from
prison. (See Notice of Change of Address, Dec. 10, 2025, Docket No. 6.) Accordingly, the
Court will adopt the R&R to the extent that Lee will be directed to pay the unpaid balance,
but because Lee is no longer a prisoner, the Clerk of Court need not collect the fee in the
manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
Finally, on October 8, 2026, Lee filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint. (Docket No. 5.) The Court will deny this motion for multiple reasons. First,
the motion did not comply with the Local Rules governing motions to amend a pleading
in this District.1 Local Rule 15.1(b) requires that
[a]ny motion to amend a pleading must be accompanied by:
(1) a copy of the proposed amended pleading, and (2) a
version of the proposed amended pleading that shows—
through redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or other similarly
effective typographic methods—how the proposed amended
pleading differs from the operative pleading.
D. Minn. LR 15.1(b). Lee’s failure to comply with this rule—he provided neither a copy of
a proposed amended pleading nor a redlined complaint—prevents the Court from
substantively reviewing Lee’s request to amend his Complaint. Moreover, Lee’s failure to
comply with the Local Rules is a sufficient, independent basis to deny his Motion to
1 Although the Court is required to liberally construe the content of a pro se plaintiff’s
pleadings, plaintiffs are nevertheless required to comply with all substantive and procedural laws.
See, e.g., Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8 th Cir. 1984); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93
(2007).
CASE 0:25-cv-03554-JRT-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 4

-3-
Amend the Complaint. D. Minn. LR 1.3, 7.1(g); Sgromo v. Target Brands Inc., Civ. No. 20-
1030, 2020 WL 7626606, at *13 (D. Minn. Oct. 7, 2020).
Even if the Court were to allow the amendment, however, the Complaint would
still be defective. To the extent the Court understands Lee’s motion, he seeks to replace
Defendant the Director of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension with “BCA MN
Employees John Doe/Jane Doe.” (See Mot. at 1, October 8, 2026, Docket No. 5.) As the
Magistrate Judge stated in the R&R, “liability under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and
direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights.” 	(R&R at 4 (quoting Madewell v.
Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8 th Cir. 1990)). Lee’s proposed amendment does not solve
the defect in his original Complaint: “Lee does not plausibly allege that the (unnamed)
director [or other BCA employees] himself or herself acted wrongfully.” (Id.) Thus, Lee’s
proposed amendments to his Complaint would not cure the deficiencies. 	Moses.com
Sec., Inc. v. Comprehensive Software Sys., Inc., 406 F.3d 1052 (8 th Cir. 2005) (noting the
Court may deny leave to amend when the amendment is futile).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. [3]) is ADOPTED in part:
a. 	This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b).
CASE 0:25-cv-03554-JRT-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 4

-4-
b. 	The application to proceed in forma pauperis of plaintiff Abraham Sigurd
Lee (Docket No. [2]) is DENIED.
c. 	Lee is directed to pay the unpaid balance ($350.00) of the statutory filing
fee for this action, and the Clerk of Court is directed to provide notice of
this requirement to Lee.
2. 	Lee’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Docket No. [5]) is
DENIED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
DATED: February 19, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim ____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-03554-JRT-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 02/19/26 Page 4 of 4