Beaulieu v. Jesson et al
Filing
49
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Defendants' partial motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacity (Doc. No. 43 ) is GRANTED. Only Beaulieu's claims for monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacity are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. By separate correspondence, the Court will refer Plaintiff to the Pro Se Project.(Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 4/27/2023. (las)
CASE 0:11-cv-02593-DWF-JFD Doc. 49 Filed 04/27/23 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 11-2593 (DWF/JFD)
Wallace James Beaulieu,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
Lucinda Jesson, Dennis Benson, Kevin
Moser, Terry Kniesel, Blake Carey, Sara
Kulas, Robert Rose, Jane Stinar, Mike
Anderson, and Jay Little, all in their
official and individual capacities,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss Plaintiff
Wallace James Beaulieu’s complaint for monetary damages against Defendants in their
official capacity. (Doc. No. 43.) Beaulieu has not responded to the motion. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants’ motion.
BACKGROUND
Beaulieu is civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (“MSOP”).
In 2011, Beaulieu filed this action against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking
monetary damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory judgment. (Doc. No. 1 at 10.)
Beaulieu alleges that Defendants violated his First Amendment right of freedom of
expression and his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments when
Defendants restricted Beaulieu from wearing a necklace on top of his shirt and
CASE 0:11-cv-02593-DWF-JFD Doc. 49 Filed 04/27/23 Page 2 of 4
disciplined him when he failed to comply. (Id. at 8-10.) Beaulieu sues Defendants in
their individual and official capacities. (Id. at 1.) Defendants now move to dismiss
Beaulieu’s claims for monetary damages against them in their official capacity.
DISCUSSION
In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a court assumes all
facts in the complaint to be true and construes all reasonable inferences from those facts
in the light most favorable to the complainant. Morton v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th
Cir. 1986). In doing so, however, a court need not accept as true wholly conclusory
allegations, Hanten v. Sch. Dist. of Riverview Gardens, 183 F.3d 799, 805 (8th Cir.
1999), or legal conclusions drawn by the pleader from the facts alleged, Westcott v. City
of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990).
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” it must
contain facts with enough specificity “to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Id. at 555. In addition, the Court notes that pro se complaints are held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). Even so, a pro see complaint must allege facts, and not
just bare, unsupported, legal conclusions. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th
Cir. 1985).
Defendants in this case are state officials. Beaulieu sues Defendants in their
individual and official capacities. “[A] suit against a state official in his or her official
2
CASE 0:11-cv-02593-DWF-JFD Doc. 49 Filed 04/27/23 Page 3 of 4
capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official’s office . . .
As such, it is no different from a suit against the State itself.” Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Thus, the Court construes Beaulieu’s § 1983 officialcapacity claims against Defendants as being alleged against the State of Minnesota.
“The Eleventh Amendment immunizes an unconsenting State from damage
actions brought in federal court, except when Congress has abrogated that immunity for a
particular federal cause of action.” Hadley v. N. Ark. Cmty. Tech. Coll., 76 F.3d 1437,
1438 (8th Cir. 1996). “Section 1983 does not override Eleventh Amendment immunity.”
Id. “It is well-settled that in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the Eleventh Amendment
precludes an award of money damages against a state official acting in his or her official
capacity.” Semler v. Ludeman, No. 09-cv-732, 2010 WL 145275, at *7 (D. Minn. Jan. 8,
2010) (citing Will, 491 U.S. at 66-67). Because the State has not consented to this action,
Beaulieu is precluded from suing Defendants in their official capacity for monetary
damages. The Court therefore grants Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons outlined above, the Court grants Defendants’ partial motion to
dismiss. Beaulieu’s claims for monetary damages against Defendants in their official
capacity are dismissed with prejudice.
ORDER
Based upon the record before the Court, and the Court being otherwise duly
advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
3
CASE 0:11-cv-02593-DWF-JFD Doc. 49 Filed 04/27/23 Page 4 of 4
1.
Defendants partial motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for monetary
damages against Defendants in their official capacity (Doc. No. [43]) is GRANTED.
2.
Only Beaulieu’s claims for monetary damages against Defendants in their
official capacity are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3.
By separate correspondence, the Court will refer Plaintiff to the Pro Se
Project.
Dated: April 27, 2023
s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
4
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?