Stabnow v. Johnson-Piper et al

Filing 32

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 1. Plaintiff Robert Lee Stabnow's objections (Doc. No. 28 ) to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisboiss April 7, 2017 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. 2. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois's April 7 , 2017 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 27 ) is ADOPTED. 3. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 11 ) is GRANTED as to all Defendants. 4. Plaintiff's § 1983 claims for monetary damages against all De fendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 5. Plaintiff's § 1983 claims for injunctive relief against all Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 6. Plaintiff's § 1983 claims which are based upon alleg ed violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of substantive due process and equal protection are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 7. Plaintiffs claims which are based upon alleged violations of the Minnesota Constitution are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 8. Plaintiffs claims in Count IV are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/29/2017. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Robert Lee Stabnow,

Civil No. 16-2648 (DWF/LIB)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Emily Johnson Piper; Shelby Richardson;
Nancy Johnston; Jannine Hébert; Kevin Moser;
Terry Kneisel; Steve Sajdak; Scott Benoit;
Ralph Schmidt; Ken Stewart; Julianna L.
Beavens; Ronald Fischer; Sara L. Kulas; Dana
Osborne; Jenna Younker; Mark A. Hansen;
Will A. Robinson; Mathew R. Brown; Thomas L.
Cherro; Nicole L. Kielty; Jesse J. Cornish;
Thane D. Murphy; Rebecca L. Benson; Meg M.
Mccauley; Kris Huso; Minnesota Sex
Offender Program; and the Minnesota
Department of Human Services,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Robert Lee Stabnow’s (“Plaintiff”)
objections (Doc. No. 28) to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s April 7, 2017 Report and
Recommendation (Doc. No. 27) insofar as it recommends that: (1) Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint be granted as to all Defendants; (2) Plaintiff’s § 1983
claims for monetary damages against all Defendants in their official capacities be
dismissed with prejudice; (3) Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for injunctive relief against all
Defendants be dismissed without prejudice; (4) Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims which are based
upon alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of substantive due
process and equal protection be dismissed without prejudice; (5) Plaintiff’s claims which

are based upon alleged violations of the Minnesota Constitution be dismissed with
prejudice; and (6) Plaintiff’s claims in Count IV be dismissed with prejudice. The
Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s objection on May 15, 2017. (Doc. No. 30.)
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including a review of the
arguments and submissions of counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Rule 72.2(b). The relevant factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly set
forth in the Report and Recommendation and is incorporated by reference for purposes of
Plaintiff’s objections. 1
In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Brisbois recommended the
following conclusions: the Eleventh Amendment bars recovery of monetary damages
against Defendants to the extent they are sued in their official capacities; Plaintiff has
inadequately alleged many of the individually-named Defendants’ personal involvement
in alleged acts to support liability; Plaintiff has failed to plead facts to support relief for
equal protection and substantive due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment
(Count I); Plaintiff’s allegations of inhumane treatment and unconstitutional punishment
do not state a claim for a violation of substantive due process under the Fourteenth
Amendment (Counts II and III); Plaintiff does not have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 10607 (Count IV); and Plaintiff may not pursue claims based on violations of the
1

To the extent the Report and Recommendation contains minor discrepancies from
the record, such discrepancies are not material to the Court’s analysis of Plaintiff’s
claims, and the Court has relied upon the record itself. The Court notes for clarity,
however, that Plaintiff’s initial Complaint was filed on August 5, 2016, (Doc. No. 1), and
not August 15, 2016 as stated in the Report and Recommendation (see Doc. No. 27 at 5).
2

Minnesota Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Court should not exercise
pendent jurisdiction over such claims.
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation for six
reasons: (1) the Magistrate Judge ignored or misconstrued some of the alleged facts;
(2) the Magistrate Judge’s characterization of facts underlying Count III erroneously
referenced discussions from Plaintiff’s core group and his receipt of a BER, and the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis of Count III should have addressed equal protection and
Minnesota’s mandated reporter statute, Minn. Stat. § 626.5572, subd. 16; (3) under Minn.
Stat § 626.557, subd. 7, Plaintiff may seek monetary damages against Defendants in their
official capacities for failure to fulfill their statutory duties as mandated reporters; (4) the
Magistrate Judge erred in relying on Karsjens v. Piper, 845 F.3d 394 (8th Cir. 2017),
petition for cert. filed, No. 16-1394 (May 23, 2017); (5) the Magistrate Judge erred in
recommending dismissal of Counts I through III; and (6) Plaintiff requests if the claims
are dismissed, that he be permitted to amend his complaint and obtain court-appointed
counsel.
In response to Plaintiff’s objections, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to
present any meritorious objections to the Report and Recommendation and that the
Magistrate Judge properly recommended dismissal. First, Defendants address Plaintiff’s
substantive due process challenges and assert that the Magistrate Judge applied the proper
standard and that Plaintiff made no attempt to show that Defendants’ actions violated his

3

fundamental rights or were conscience-shocking. Second, Defendants argue that the
Report and Recommendation contained a complete fact summary, and even if the
Magistrate Judge misconstrued certain facts, Plaintiff fails to articulate why those facts
were material to the analysis. Third, Defendants argue that Count III warrants dismissal
notwithstanding any error in the Magistrate Judge’s statement of facts. Fourth,
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claim under Minn. Stat. § 626.557 is not properly before
the Court, and in any event would fail. Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed
to demonstrate that justice requires permitting further amendment of the complaint.
The Court has carefully reviewed the record and overrules Plaintiff’s objections.
The Report and Recommendation thoroughly set forth the relevant facts underlying
Plaintiff’s allegations. To the extent the Report and Recommendation contains any
incomplete or inaccurate facts, the Court concludes they are immaterial to the Magistrate
Judge’s ultimate recommendations. Even though Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
referenced Minn. Stat. § 626.557, subd. 7, (Doc. No. 19 at 5), Plaintiff did not assert a
claim under Minnesota’s mandated reporter statute, and the Magistrate Judge did not err
in declining to address Defendants’ liability under this provision, (see Doc. No. 27 at 6
n.4). 2 Further, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of Counts I through

2

Notably, even if such a claim were properly alleged in this case, the Court would
nonetheless decline to exercise jurisdiction over it because all of Plaintiff’s claims based
on federal law warrant dismissal. See Barstad v. Murray Cty., 420 F.3d 880, 888 (8th
Cir. 2005) (“A federal district court has discretion to decline jurisdiction if it has
‘dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” (quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3))).
4

III and his ultimate recommendation that these claims should be dismissed for failure to
allege sufficient facts to support relief. 3 In short, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s claims
should be dismissed. Further, Plaintiff has failed to specify how additional amendment
would remedy his claims, and the Court concludes that further amendment would be
futile. Thus, the Court respectfully denies Plaintiff’s request for leave to further amend
his pleading. See In re NVE Corp. Sec. Litig., 527 F.3d 749, 752 (8th Cir. 2008). Based
upon the de novo review of the record, all of the arguments and submissions of the
parties, and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the Court hereby
enters the following:
ORDER
1.

Plaintiff Robert Lee Stabnow’s objections (Doc. No. [28]) to Magistrate

Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s April 7, 2017 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s April 7, 2017 Report and

Recommendation (Doc. No. [27]) is ADOPTED.
3.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. [11]) is

GRANTED as to all Defendants.

3

The Court notes that the Report and Recommendation does not reference
Defendants Murphy and Benson in discussing Plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 10607
in Count IV. However, this omission is immaterial because the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusion that this statute does not create a viable cause of action supports dismissal as
to all Defendants. The Court also notes that as of September 1, 2017, this statute now
appears at 34 U.S.C. § 20141, but the relevant statutory language is identical.
5

4.

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for monetary damages against all Defendants in

their official capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
5.

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for injunctive relief against all Defendants are

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
6.

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims which are based upon alleged violations of the

Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of substantive due process and equal protection are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
7.

Plaintiff’s claims which are based upon alleged violations of the Minnesota

Constitution are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
8.

Plaintiff’s claims in Count IV are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: September 29, 2017

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

6