Daywitt et al v. Minnesota Department of Human Services et al

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AS MODIFIED 37 (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright on 04/20/2017. (TJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Kenneth Steven Daywitt and
Kenneth Gernard Parks,

Case No. 16-cv-0648 (WMW/FLN)

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AS
MODIFIED

Minnesota Department of
Human Services, et al.,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the January 27, 2017 Report and
Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel.
(Dkt. 37.) Plaintiffs are civilly committed individuals in the Minnesota Sex Offender
Program who previously were involved in a sexual relationship. Plaintiffs filed this
action seeking monetary and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendants’ decision to deny
Plaintiffs’ request to be roommates violated their civil rights. Specifically, Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants’ denial of their roommate request violated (1) Title II of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a, et seq.; (2) the Minnesota Human Rights Act,
Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.01, et seq.; (3) the equal protection clause of the United States
Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, and the equivalent protections under the
Minnesota Constitution, Minn. Const. art. I, § 2; and (4) Title III of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000b, et seq. The R&R recommends granting Defendants’

motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. No objections to the R&R have
been filed.
In the absence of timely objections, this Court reviews an R&R for clear error.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (“When no timely objection is filed,
the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.”); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir.
1996). Having conducted a careful review, the Court finds no clear error as to the R&R’s
recommendation that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ request
for monetary damages. Plaintiffs also fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted
under Titles II and III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a, et seq.,
2000b, et seq.; and the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution, U.S.
Const. amend. XIV, § 1, and the equivalent protections under the Minnesota Constitution,
Minn. Const. art. I, § 2.
The Court modifies the R&R, however, as it pertains to Plaintiffs’ claim that
Defendants violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.01 et seq.
When a district court dismisses all pending federal claims, it need not exercise
jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. A district court instead should “exercise
judicial restraint and avoid state law issues wherever possible.” Condor Corp. v. City of
St. Paul, 912 F.2d 215, 220 (8th Cir. 1990). Because the Court dismisses each of
Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim
under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

2

Finally, the Court adopts as modified the R&R’s recommendation that this matter
be dismissed with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on
the merits. Semtek Int’l, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 505 (2001). The
dismissal of a complaint traditionally is without prejudice unless the complaint is so
deficient or defective that it cannot be cured. See, e.g., Wolff v. Bank of New York
Mellon, 997 F. Supp. 2d 964, 980 n.8 (D. Minn. 2014). Here, only Plaintiffs’ claims
under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Constitution are fatally flawed.
Neither Title II nor Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against claims of
discrimination based on sexual orientation. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a, et seq., 2000b, et
seq. (both prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national
origin). And 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not provide a private right of action under the
Minnesota Constitution. See Kurtz v. City of Shrewsbury, 245 F.3d 753, 758 (8th Cir.
2001). For these reasons, the Court dismisses with prejudice only Plaintiffs’ claims
pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Constitution, and dismisses
without prejudice the remaining claims.
ORDER
Based on the R&R, the foregoing analysis, and all of the files, records and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

The January 27, 2017 R&R, (Dkt. 37), is ADOPTED AS MODIFIED;

2.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 29), is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’

complaint is DISMISSED as follows:
a.

Count I is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
3

b.

Count II is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

c.

Count III, to the extent that it asserts a claim under the Equal
Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const.
amend. XIV, § 1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

d.

Count III, to the extent that it asserts a claim for a violation of the
Minnesota Constitution, Minn. Const. art. I, § 2, is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE; and

e.

Count IV is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: April 20, 2017

s/Wilhelmina M. Wright
Wilhelmina M. Wright
United States District Judge

4