Capers v. Sarette et al

Filing 30

ORDER - Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court ADOPTS the R&R 24 . Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Defendant Ramsey County Public Defender's motion to dismiss 13 is GRANTED and pl aintiffs' Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claims against the Ramsey County Public Defender are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claims against defendant Richard Seehuetter in his official capacity are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 03/18/14. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JOHNNIE ROBERT CAPERS,

Case No. 13-CV-1041 (PJS/JJG)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

RAMSEY COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER
and CHRISTOPHER SEEHUETTER, Saint
Paul Police Officer,
Defendants.

Johnnie Robert Capers, pro se.
Alethea M. Huyser, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, for defendant
Ramsey County Public Defender.
Plaintiff Johnnie Capers brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the United States
Constitution against the Ramsey County Public Defender (“Public Defender”) and Christopher
Seehuetter, a deceased St. Paul police officer. This matter is before the Court on Capers’s
objection to the January 15, 2014 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate
Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Judge Graham recommends dismissing all claims against Officer
Seehuetter under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and granting the Public Defender’s motion to
dismiss. 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 adopts the R&R.
The Court agrees with Judge Graham that the Eleventh Amendment bars Capers’s § 1983
and constitutional claims against the Public Defender and that Capers has not pleaded any facts
to support the official-capacity claims that he asserts against Officer Seehuetter. In his objection,
Capers does not identify any error in Judge Graham’s analysis. Instead, Capers mostly refers to

claims — in particular, claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7 — that are
included in a second amended complaint that he submitted with his objection and that he seeks
leave to file. That pleading is not properly before the Court, however. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a)(2).1
The Court therefore adopts the R&R. But because, as noted, Capers has recently filed a
motion to amend his complaint, the Court will not enter judgment at this time in order to permit
consideration of Capers’s motion.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court
ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 24]. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

Defendant Ramsey County Public Defender’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 13] is
GRANTED and plaintiffs’ Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and 42
U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the Ramsey County Public Defender are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

2.

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against defendant
Richard Seehuetter in his official capacity are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Dated: March 18, 2014

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

1

Capers seems to suggest that he pleaded § 1985 and § 2000d-7 claims in the first
amended complaint that is properly before the Court, but he plainly did not.
-2-