govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_25-cv-03623-1

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
              
 
James D. Wren, 
 
Plaintiff,  
 
v.  
 
Minnesota Department of Corrections; Paul 
Schnell, Commissioner, in his official 
capacity; Minnesota Correctional Facility 
Stillwater; William Bollin, Warden, in his 
official capacity ; Gary, Sgt., in his official 
and individual capacities; Jenny Carufel, Lt., 
in her official and individual capacities ; 
Terra O’Conner, Lt., in her official and 
individual capacities, 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
File No. 25-CV-3623 (JMB/LIB) 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
 
James D. Wren, Moose Lake, MN, self-represented. 
Madeline Mae Sheehy and Rachel E. Bell-Munger, Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, 
St. Paul, MN, for Defendants Paul Schnell, William Bolin,1 Gary, Jenny Carufel, and Terra 
O’Conner. 
   
 
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of 
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, dated January 6, 2026, regarding the 
viability of certain claims in Plaintiff James D. Wren’s Complaint against Defendants 
Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC), Paul Schnell, Minnesota Correctional 
 
1 The Court notes that the Complaint names “William Bollin” as a Defendant; however, 
the Court will refer to this Defendant as “William Bolin.”  
CASE 0:25-cv-03623-JMB-LIB     Doc. 36     Filed 05/15/26     Page 1 of 6
2 
 
Facility Stillwater (MCF -Stillwater), William Bolin, Gary, Jenny Carufel, and Terra 
O’Conner (together, Defendants).  (Doc. No. 10.)  Wren objected to the R&R (Objection).  
(Doc. No. 12.)  For the reasons explained below, the Court will overrule Wren’s Objections 
and adopt the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations to dismiss certain portions of the 
Complaint. 
BACKGROUND  
The factual background for this matter is set forth in the R&R and is incorporated 
here by reference.  Because the R&R provides a detailed history, the Court only briefly 
summarizes it here.  
 In September 2025, Wren filed a seven-count civil-rights Complaint, in which he 
alleged that Defendants’ discretionary use of unreliable rapid drug- screening tests and 
implementation of disciplinary  measures based on the results of such  tests, is unlawful.  
(Doc. No. 1.)  Specifically, Wren alleges that, in July 2024, certain DOC staff members 
used the rapid drug -screening tests on pieces of paper in his cell without first taking 
precautions to avoid cross-contamination with other inmates’ property, which produced a 
positive result.  (Id. at 7–8.)  Afterward, based on the allegedly unconfirmed positive drug 
tests, Defendants placed Wren in an administrative segregation unit and confiscated (and 
never returned) certain items of his property.  (Id. at 8–9.)  He asserts that Defendants’ 
practices violate his right to counsel under the Minnesota Constitution (Count I); violate 
his rights to due process under the Minnesota Constitution (Count II); are negligent (Count 
III); are discriminatory (Count IV); constitu te harassment (Count V); violate his right of 
CASE 0:25-cv-03623-JMB-LIB     Doc. 36     Filed 05/15/26     Page 2 of 6
3 
 
access to the courts (Count VI); and constitute civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. §  1985 
(Count VII).  (See id. at 11–17.) 
 The Magistrate Judge issued an R&R after reviewing the pleadings under 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1915(e)(2).  Section 1915(e)(2) provides that, in a matter in which a party proceeds in 
forma pauperis, the Court shall dismiss claims that are frivolous or for which the plaintiff 
has failed to state a claim in the pleading.  See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).  In the R&R, the 
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss portions of Wren’s Complaint, and 
that the case proceed only on the individual -capacity claims and the  official-capacity 
claims (only to the extent that Wren does not seek monetary or other retrospective 
damages) in Counts I, II, III, V, and VI against Schnell, Bolin, Gary, and O’Conner.  
Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of the following claims: (1) the 
claims against DOC  and MCF-Stillwater, and the official-capacity claims for monetary 
damages against Schnell, Bolin, Gary, Carufel, and O’Conner because such claims are 
foreclosed by those parties’ immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution; (2) the claims against Carufel in her individual capacity on grounds that the 
Complaint makes no allegation regarding Carufel or her conduct ; and (3)  the Equal 
Protection Clause claim asserted at Count IV for failure to state a claim because Wren does 
not allege that he (as either a member of a group or as an individual) was treated differently 
than other similarly situated groups or individuals, and (4) the civil conspiracy claim 
asserted at Count VII for failure t o state a claim  because Wren’s allegations regarding 
conspiracy are impermissibly conclusory and because the Monell  aspect of the claim is 
duplicative of the claims in Counts I, II, and VI.  (See Doc. No. 10 at 7–12.) 
CASE 0:25-cv-03623-JMB-LIB     Doc. 36     Filed 05/15/26     Page 3 of 6
4 
 
DISCUSSION 
 Wren now raises several object ions to the R&R.  (Doc. 12.)  For the reasons 
discussed below, the Court overrules the Objections. 
The Court conducts a de novo review of any portion of an R&R to which a party 
makes specific objections.  28 U.S.C. §  636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R. 
72.2(b).  The Court gives the filings and objections of self -represented litigants liberal 
construction.  Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004). 
 Wren first objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Carufel be 
dismissed because the Complaint does not make any allegations about her or her conduct.  
(Doc. No. 12 at 1 –2.)  Wren provides several examples of how Carufel is linked to the 
conduct and occurrences alleged in the Complaint —for example, he alleges that Carufel  
“was in charge of copying Plaintiff[’s] legal mail and all paper property” and that he 
exchanged “many kites” with her, and that those kites are “now exhibits in this action.”  
(Id. at 1.)  However, a complaint cannot be amended through allegations made in briefing.  
Al-Saadoon v. Barr, 973 F.3d 794, 805 (8th Cir. 2020).  Further, though Wren attached 
exhibits to the Complaint showing Carufel’s name on certain prison communication 
documents (see, e.g., Doc. No. 1-1 at 13), he does not allege in his Complaint what about 
Carufel’s conduct was unlawful.  The Court is required to “liberally construe []” Wren’s 
complaint, Erikson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)  (quotation omitted), but it is not 
required to speculate what Wren’s allegations of unlawful conduct are.   Therefore, the 
Court overrules Wren’s objectio n and will dismiss all claims against Carufel without 
prejudice. 
CASE 0:25-cv-03623-JMB-LIB     Doc. 36     Filed 05/15/26     Page 4 of 6
5 
 
 Second, Wren objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Count IV be 
dismissed on grounds that the Complaint lacks allegations that Wren was a member of a 
protected class or that he was singled out for unfavorable treatment.  (Doc. No. 12 at 3–5.)  
In his Objection, Wren makes allegations regarding his membership in a protected class 
and that he was singled out by Defendants for disparate treatment.  (See id.)  However, as 
already noted, Wren cannot fix deficiencies in his Complaint through briefing.  Al-
Saadoon, 973 F.3d at 805.  Therefore, the Court overrules Wren’s objection and will 
dismiss Count IV without prejudice. 
 Lastly, Wren objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Monell 
aspect of Count VII be dismissed.  (Doc. No. 12 at 5 –6.)  Here, again, Wren makes an 
argument with reference to facts that are not alleged in the Complaint —these arguments 
do not remedy the factual deficiencies in the Complaint.  Al-Saadoon, 973 F.3d at 805.   
ORDER 
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT 
IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 
1. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. No. 12) to the R&R. 
2. The Court ADOPTS the R&R.  (Doc. No. 10.)  
3. The Court DISMISSES the following portions of the Complaint: 
a. Count IV is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
b. Count VII is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
c. All remaining claims for monetary damages and other retrospective 
relief against Defendants Paul Schnell, William Bolin, Gary, Jenny 
Carufel, and Terra O’Conner in their official capacities are 
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
CASE 0:25-cv-03623-JMB-LIB     Doc. 36     Filed 05/15/26     Page 5 of 6
6 
 
d. All remaining claims against Defendant Jenny Carufel in any capacity 
are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
e. All claims against Defendants Minnesota Department of Corrections 
and Minnesota Correctional Facility Stillwater are DISMISSED 
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 
Dated:  May 15, 2026     /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan    
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan 
United States District Court 
CASE 0:25-cv-03623-JMB-LIB     Doc. 36     Filed 05/15/26     Page 6 of 6

Passage view · GavelSight