Ntamere v. Amerihealth Adminstrators Inc

Background

Anthony E. Ntamere proceeded without paying the filing fee and filed a Second Amended Complaint. The court had previously dismissed claims against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and its investigator without prejudice, removed the Minnesota Department of Human Rights from the case at Ntamere’s request, and allowed him to add Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minnesota Department of Human Rights Commissioner Rebecca Lucero, and lead investigator Tom Bernette.

The court had also previously dismissed claims against Amerihealth Administrators, Inc. (AHA), International Blue Cross of PA (IBC), John Clayton, Jeffrey Kearns, Michele Schumacher, and Tashima Waller. The court later allowed Ntamere to file the Second Amended Complaint but explained that amendment did not revive claims already dismissed. The defendants filed a protective motion to dismiss because the amended complaint again included claims against them.

Magistrate judge’s recommendation and objections

Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty reviewed the Second Amended Complaint under the statutory screening process for claims filed by a person proceeding without paying the filing fee. He recommended dismissal because the complaint did not state plausible claims for relief.

The recommendation addressed several categories of claims. It concluded that the Minnesota Department of Human Rights was not a “person” that could be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It concluded that money-damages claims against Ellison, Lucero, and Bernette in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. It also concluded that Ntamere had not alleged a protected property interest supporting his due-process claim, had not alleged facts supporting an equal-protection claim against Bernette, and had not stated a plausible constitutional or federal claim against the state officials in their individual capacities. The recommendation further advised declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Ntamere objected to the recommendation. He argued, among other things, that the Minnesota Human Rights Act created a protected interest in local review of his complaint and that a federal investigator had intentionally interfered with that review. The court rejected those objections. It agreed that the Minnesota Human Rights Act gave the state commissioner discretion over which charges to process and how to process them, so it did not create a protected property interest in having Ntamere’s complaint handled in a particular way. The court also declined to reconsider its earlier ruling concerning the federal investigator and found no clear error in the recommendation concerning the equal-protection claim.

Ruling

The court accepted the January 17, 2024 Report and Recommendation, overruled Ntamere’s objections, and granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for the same reasons and on the same terms as the court’s November 14, 2023 dismissal order, subject to one modification. Judge Katherine Menendez also found that further amendment was unwarranted because Ntamere had already amended his complaint twice and neither pleading had passed screening and dismissal review.

The order dismissed the claims as follows:

- Claims against Charlotte Czarnecki and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: dismissed without prejudice. - Claims against John Clayton, Tashima Waller, and Michele Schumacher: dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. - The § 1983 claims against Amerihealth Administrators Inc.: dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. - The § 1981 discrimination claims against IBC, AHA, and Jeffrey Kearns: dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. - The § 1981 retaliation claims against IBC and AHA: dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. - The § 1983 claim against the Minnesota Department of Human Rights: dismissed without prejudice. - The § 1983 official-capacity claims for damages against Keith Ellison, Rebecca Lucero, and Tom Bernette: dismissed without prejudice because they were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. - The § 1983 official-capacity claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against Ellison, Lucero, and Bernette: dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. - The state-law claims: dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

The court directed that judgment be entered. The court specifically modified the earlier dismissal to clarify that all claims against Clayton and Waller, including the § 1981 claims, were dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction because the court did not reach the merits of those claims.