Boots v. Johnson et al

Filing 37

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Plaintiff Bill M. Boots' objections (Doc. No. 33 ) to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois's January 23, 2018 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois's Janua ry 23, 2018 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 32 ) is ADOPTED, consistent with this order. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. No. 14 ) is GRANTED as follows: a. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants in their o fficial capacities seeking monetary damages are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. b. All of Plaintiffs other claims against Defendants in their official and individual capacities are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's Motion for Additional Storage Bin (Doc. No. 23 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. This action is DISMISSED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 8/2/2018. (las)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Bill M. Boots,

Civil No. 17-3923 (DWF/LIB)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Nathan Johnson, Kevin Carlson,
Richard O’Connor, Thorne M. Torgerson,
Julie Rose, Sara Kulas, Andrea M. Kosloski,
and Kevin Moser, sued in their individual
and official capacities,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Bill M. Boots’ (“Plaintiff”)
objections (Doc. No. 33) to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’ January 23, 2018 Report
and Recommendation (Doc. No. 32) which recommends that: (1) Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint be granted as follows: (a) Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendants in their official capacities seeking monetary damages be dismissed with
prejudice; and (b) all of Plaintiff’s other claims against Defendants in their official and
individual capacities be dismissed without prejudice; (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Additional
Storage Bin be denied as moot; and (3) the action be dismissed. Defendants filed a
response to Plaintiff’s objections on February 28, 2018. (Doc. No. 35.)
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 factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly and

precisely set forth in the Report and Recommendation and is incorporated by reference
for purposes of Plaintiff’s objections.
In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the
Court grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, deny as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for
Additional Storage Bin, and dismiss the action. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge
recommended dismissing all claims seeking monetary damages against Defendants in
their official capacities with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the
remaining claims be dismissed without prejudice. With respect to Defendants O’Connor,
Torgerson, Rose, Kulas, Kosloski, and Moser, the Magistrate Judge concluded that
Plaintiff failed to allege specific facts to demonstrate their personal involvement and
impose liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, the Magistrate Judge rejected the
imposition of vicarious liability as to these defendants. With respect to Defendants
Carlson and Johnson, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to
adequately allege facts to support liability for deliberate indifference under the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments. 1

1

Plaintiff’s Complaint only alleges Fourteenth Amendment claims and does not
reference the Eighth Amendment. Contrary to the Magistrate Judge’s statement in the
Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff, a civilly committed individual, may not assert an
Eighth Amendment claim because he is not incarcerated, and “[t]he rights of patients in
psychiatric hospitals more appropriately arise under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Revels
v. Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870, 874 (8th Cir. 2004). However, “the Fourteenth Amendment
provides pretrial detainees at least the same level of constitutional protection as the
Eighth Amendment does to prisoners,” Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 446 n.3 (8th
Cir. 2010), and the Eighth Circuit has analogized Minnesota Sex Offender Program
residents to pretrial detainees, see Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1045 (8th Cir.
2012). The Court adopts the analysis of Plaintiff’s claims under an Eighth Amendment
standard, noting that these claims properly arise under the Fourteenth Amendment.
2

Plaintiff objects on the grounds that: (1) he was not seeking monetary damages
against Defendants named in their official capacities; (2) the Complaint includes
allegations that Defendants O’Connor, Torgerson, Rose, Kulas, Kosloski, and Moser
were personally involved in the enforcement of an offensive policy, and these Defendants
may also be held liable based on vicarious liability; and (3) Plaintiff has adequately
alleged that Defendants Carlson and Johnson were aware of a substantial risk to
Plaintiff’s safety and failed to reasonably respond. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s
objections and ask the Court to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. 2
The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s objections fail to establish any reason to
depart from the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. With respect to
monetary damages, the Complaint states that “Plaintiff seeks monetary and compensatory
damages in Defendants’ individual capacity only.” (Doc. No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 2.)
However, the Complaint’s Prayer for Relief fails to distinguish Plaintiff’s claims in this
manner and generally seeks “[j]udgment . . . against Defendants, jointly and severally, for
compensatory and monetary damages.” (Id. at Prayer for Relief ¶ D.) The Court shall
adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on this issue out of an
abundance of caution to the extent any portion of Plaintiff’s Complaint can be read as
seeking monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities.
2

Defendants also raise additional bases on which the Court could arguably dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint, including failure to allege an official policy or custom that
contributed to his alleged injury, failure to allege that he is likely to face injury in the
future, and qualified immunity. Because the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report
and Recommendation, the Court need not reach these alternative grounds for dismissal.
3

Furthermore, the Court agrees that, even construing Plaintiff’s allegations liberally
and in his favor, the Complaint lacks specificity and contains generalized and conclusory
allegations that fail to state a claim for relief against the Defendants. 3 Even if all
Defendants were aware of the incompatibility between Plaintiff and his assailant under
MSOP policy and of the No-Contact Order between these two individuals, that alone
does not amount to a sufficiently specific allegation that Defendants were aware of and
deliberately disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). Although it is regrettable that Plaintiff suffered an
assault at the hands of another committed individual residing at the Minnesota Sex
Offender Program, his allegations fail to state a claim that any of the Defendants violated
his constitutional rights. See Prater v. Dahm, 89 F.3d 538, 541-42 (8th Cir. 1996)
(“[E]ven though harm to [the plaintiff] was not ultimately avoided, the [facility] officials’
conduct does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.”).
Thus, based upon the de novo review of the record and 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:
3

The Court notes that, along with the generalized allegations noted in the Report
and Recommendation, the Complaint contains more specific allegations with respect to
Defendants Kulas and Johnson. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that these defendants
debriefed the February 22, 2015 incident along with the staff involved. (Doc. No. 1
(“Compl.”) at 8.) In addition, the Complaint indicates that Johnson directed Security
Counselor Robert Gresczyk to have a conversation with Plaintiff on January 5, 2016
regarding an interaction between Plaintiff and his assailant. (See id. at 22.) Finally, the
Complaint alleges that all Defendants “were fully aware of the incompatibility between
Plaintiff and Jackson, however failed to follow proper procedures regarding
incompatibilities between clients.” (See id. at 10.) Even these additional allegations,
however, fail to plausibly support Plaintiff’s overall claims.
4

ORDER
1.

Plaintiff Bill M. Boots’ objections (Doc. No. [33]) to Magistrate Judge

Leo I. Brisbois’s January 23, 2018 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s January 23, 2018 Report and

Recommendation (Doc. No. [32]) is ADOPTED, consistent with this order.
3.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. [14]) is

GRANTED as follows:
a.

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official

capacities seeking monetary damages are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
b.

All of Plaintiff’s other claims against Defendants in their

official and individual capacities are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
4.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Additional Storage Bin (Doc. No. [23]) is DENIED

AS MOOT.
5.

This action is DISMISSED.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: August 2, 2018

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

5