Pyron et al v. Ludeman et al

Filing 22

ORDER OVERRULING plaintiff's objections and ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Defendants' motions to dismiss [Docket No. 9 in 10-3759, Docket No. 7 in 10-4236] are GRANTED. 2. Plaintiffs' complaints in Case Nos. 10-3759 and 10-4236 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 7/29/11. Associated Cases: 0:10-cv-03759-PJS-JJG, 0:10-cv-04236-PJS-JJG(LPH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ALLEN PYRON, ROBERT A. KUNSHIER,
and ALVIN LAMM,

Case No. 10-CV-3759 (PJS/JJG)

Plaintiffs,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
CAL LUDEMAN, Commissioner of
Department of Human Services; DENNIS
BENSON, Chief Executive Officer of
Minnesota Sex Offender Program-MSOP;
DANIEL STORKAMP, MSOP Deputy
Director; GREGG CARLSON, MSOP
Director; KEVIN MOSER, MSOP-Assistant
Director; RAYMOND RUOTSALAINEN,
Information Technology Spec 1; STEVEN
LINDEEN, Information Technology Spec 1;
and MEHRADA SHABESTARI, MSOP-IT
Supervisor,
Defendants.
SHANNON D. HOLLIE,

Case No. 10-CV-4236 (PJS/JJG)

Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
CAL LUDEMAN, Commissioner of
Department of Human Services; DENNIS
BENSON, Chief Executive Officer of
Minnesota Sex Offender Program-MSOP;
DANIEL STORKAMP, MSOP Deputy
Director; GREGG CARLSON, MSOP
Director; KEVIN MOSER, MSOP-Assistant
Director; RAYMOND RUOTSALAINEN,
Information Technology Spec 1; STEVEN
LINDEEN, Information Technology Spec 1;
and MEHRADA SHABESTARI, MSOP-IT
Supervisor,
Defendants.

Allen Pyron, Robert A. Kunshier, Alvin Lamm, and Shannon D. Hollie, plaintiffs pro se.
Ricardo Figueroa, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, for defendants.
Plaintiffs, civilly committed detainees in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program
(“MSOP”), bring these 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions against various MSOP officials in their
individual and official capacities.1 Plaintiffs challenge rules prohibiting them from possessing
certain items, limiting them to a certain amount of personal property, requiring them to store any
computer files on a network that is subject to monitoring by state personnel, and prohibiting
them from storing more than 300 megabytes of data on the network. Plaintiffs allege that these
restrictions violate their rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ objections to the June 6, 2011 Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham [Docket No. 17 in 10-3759,
Docket No. 15 in 10-4236]. Judge Graham recommends granting defendants’ motions to dismiss
plaintiffs’ complaints. The Court has conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Based on that review, the Court overrules plaintiffs’ objections and adopts
the R&R.
Only two matters merit comment:
First, Judge Graham recommends dismissing plaintiffs’ procedural-due-process claim
because, among other reasons, plaintiffs have adequate state post-deprivation remedies,
including the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. § 3.736. In their objections, plaintiffs
point out that the Minnesota Tort Claims Act does not permit recovery for “loss, damage, or
destruction of property of a patient or inmate of a state institution . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 3.736,
1

The complaints in each action are identical.
-2-

subd. 3(m). Whether or not plaintiffs have remedies under the Minnesota Tort Claims Act,
however, plaintiffs’ procedural-due-process claim fails for the other reasons identified by Judge
Graham.
In addition to the reasons identified by Judge Graham, the Court notes that plaintiffs
allege that they were given advance notice of the new policy that removable computer-storage
media would be prohibited and were also given an opportunity to transfer their files onto the
network and designate an outside recipient to receive the removable media. Compl. at 7. Setting
aside the question whether the policy is substantively valid — which, for reasons discussed by
Judge Graham, it is — no further pre-deprivation process was necessary. Given that plaintiffs
were provided notice and an opportunity to entrust their now-prohibited property to others, the
only way that plaintiffs could have been injured by the lack of further process would be if
defendants, acting pursuant to the policy, had erroneously confiscated something other than
removable media. Such an improbable mistake would likely not be a deprivation of property in
the constitutional sense. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986) (mere negligence
by a state official cannot deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property under the Fourteenth
Amendment). And in any event, plaintiffs had an adequate post-deprivation remedy in the
grievance process provided by Minn. Stat. § 246B.03, subd. 3. Under these circumstances, no
further process was necessary. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976) (determining
how much process is due is determined by balancing the private interest affected, the likelihood
that the challenged action would result in an erroneous deprivation of that interest, and the
burden of providing additional procedures).

-3-

Second, plaintiffs ask for leave to amend their complaint. But plaintiffs do not identify
any facts that they would allege and that would cure the deficiencies in their § 1983 claims.
Plaintiffs also allude to state statutes and constitutional provisions, which suggests that they
would like to bring state-law claims. But even if any state-law claims could survive other
hurdles, see Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 117 (1984) (“a
federal suit against state officials on the basis of state law contravenes the Eleventh Amendment
when . . . the relief sought and ordered has an impact directly on the State itself”), plaintiffs do
not provide any reason to suppose that the Court would have original jurisdiction over such
claims. It would be pointless to permit plaintiffs to amend their complaint to assert claims over
which the Court would have only supplemental jurisdiction when the claims over which the
Court has original jurisdiction have already been dismissed. The Court therefore overrules
plaintiffs’ objections and grants defendants’ motions to dismiss.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court
OVERRULES plaintiffs’ objections [Docket No. 18 in 10-3759, Docket No. 16 in 10-4236] and
ADOPTS the R&R [Docket No. 17 in 10-3759, Docket No. 15 in 10-4236]. IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1.

Defendants’ motions to dismiss [Docket No. 9 in 10-3759, Docket No. 7 in 104236] are GRANTED.

-4-

2.

Plaintiffs’ complaints in Case Nos. 10-3759 and 10-4236 are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: July 29, 2011

s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge

-5-