James D. Wren 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
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
James D. Wren, File No. 25-CV-3623 (JMB/LIB)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER 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.
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.” 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); constitute harassment (Count V); violate his right of 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 to 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.) DISCUSSION Wren now raises several objections 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 objection and will dismiss all claims against Carufel without prejudice. 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
James D. Wren 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 (James D. Wren 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) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.