Knutson v. Ludeman et al

Filing 31

ORDER adopting 25 Report and Recommendation. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendants' motion to dismiss [Docket No. 8 ] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 2. Defendants' motion is GRANTED as follows: a. To the extent that plaintiff is seeking money damages from any defendant in his or her official capacity, his claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. b. Plaintiff's claims against defendant Cal Ludeman are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AN D ON THE MERITS. c. Plaintiff's claims against defendant Janine Hebert are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. d. Plaintiff's claims pertaining to the "visiting application form" policy are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. e. Plaintiff's equal-protection claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS. 3. Defendants' motion is DENIED in all other respects. Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 3/1/11. (sf)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA PAUL KNUTSON, Plaintiff, v. CAL LUDEMAN, Commissioner of Department of Human Services, in his individual and official capacities; DENNIS BENSON, Chief Executive Officer of MSOP Minnesota Sex Offender program, in his individual and official capacities; DAVID PRESCOTT, Clinical Site Director, in his individual and official capacities; DR. ANN LAVALLEY WOODS, Ph.D., LP, Executive Clinical Director of MSOP, in her individual and official capacities; JANINE HEBERT, Ph.D., LP, Executive Clinical Director of MSOP, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants. Paul Knutson, pro se. Barbara Berg Windels, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, for defendants. Plaintiff Paul Knutson, who is a civilly committed detainee in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Knutson alleges that defendants have violated his federal constitutional rights by denying him visitation with his minor daughter and by making all visitors complete an application form. This matter is before the Court on the parties' objections to the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois. Judge Brisbois recommends granting defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part. The Court has conducted a ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Case No. 10-CV-0357 (PJS/LIB) de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Based on that review, the Court adopts the R&R, with two minor changes. First, the Court agrees with Judge Brisbois that Knutson has not pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim against either defendant Cal Ludeman or defendant Janine Hebert. In his objection, however, Knutson provides additional details about his interactions with Hebert. If Knutson were to amend his complaint to include these additional details, Knutson might be able to state a claim against Hebert. The Court will therefore dismiss his claim against Hebert without prejudice in order to give Knutson the opportunity to seek leave to amend his complaint. The Court notes, however, that if Knutson is granted leave to amend his complaint to state a claim against Hebert, Knutson will have to ensure that Hebert is properly served with the amended complaint. Second, the Court also agrees with Judge Brisbois that Knutson lacks standing to challenge the policy requiring visitors to complete an application form. Because Knutson's claim regarding the application forms is being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss that claim without prejudice. See City of Kan. City, Mo. v. Yarco Co., 625 F.3d 1038, 1040 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding that no subject-matter jurisdiction existed because the plaintiff lacked Article III standing); Romero v. Pinnacle Equities, LLC, 283 Fed. Appx. 429, 431 (8th Cir. 2008) (modifying dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction to be without prejudice). ORDER Based on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court OVERRULES the parties' objections [Docket Nos. 26, 28] and ADOPTS the R&R [Docket No. 25], with the changes noted above. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: -2- 1. Defendants' motion to dismiss [Docket No. 8] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 2. Defendants' motion is GRANTED as follows: a. To the extent that plaintiff is seeking money damages from any defendant in his or her official capacity, his claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. b. Plaintiff's claims against defendant Cal Ludeman are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS. c. Plaintiff's claims against defendant Janine Hebert are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. d. Plaintiff's claims pertaining to the "visiting application form" policy are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. e. Plaintiff's equal-protection claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS. 3. Defendants' motion is DENIED in all other respects. s/Patrick J. Schiltz Patrick J. Schiltz United States District Judge Dated: March 1, 2011 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?