Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Background

Hollis J. Larson, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP), several DHS and MSOP officials, and Michael Woods. Larson is civilly committed at MSOP. He alleged that his post-traumatic stress disorder was not properly diagnosed for several years, that he was punished for conduct related to the disorder, that he did not receive requested treatment and accommodations, and that officials retaliated against him.

Larson’s amended complaint asserted ten causes of action, including due-process claims for unlawful punishment and denial of treatment, First Amendment retaliation, failure to train and supervise, disability discrimination, claims under the federal Rehabilitation Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, retaliation and coercion, negligence, and state-law tort claims. The defendants moved to dismiss.

Report and Recommendation and Review

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing most of the claims but allowing four claims to proceed: claim 1, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for unlawful punishment against the DHS defendants in their official capacities, and claims 4 through 6, the three disability-discrimination claims against DHS. Larson objected broadly. The defendants did not object to the recommendation that those four claims proceed.

The court liberally construed Larson’s objections because he was proceeding without a lawyer. It reviewed the properly challenged portions of the recommendation from the beginning, but did not conduct further review of claims 9 and 10 because Larson’s objections merely asserted that more factual development was needed. The court also declined to revisit portions of the recommendation that Larson had only repeated rather than specifically challenged.

Claims Against Woods and MSOP

The court granted Woods’s motion to dismiss. It held that Woods, a regional ombudsman who was not employed by DHS or MSOP, lacked authority to make the decisions Larson challenged. The official-capacity claims against Woods were barred by state sovereign immunity, and Larson’s request for an injunction against Woods was too vague. The individual-capacity claims also failed because Larson did not adequately allege Woods’s personal involvement in the alleged violations.

The court dismissed all claims against MSOP with prejudice. It explained that MSOP is a program maintained by DHS rather than an entity that can be sued separately.

Claims Against DHS Defendants

The court dismissed the individual-capacity unlawful-punishment claims because Larson did not identify specific actions by particular defendants. It dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim because Larson did not adequately connect the challenged actions to his complaints and lawsuits. It dismissed the failure-to-train-and-supervise claim because Larson did not adequately allege that supervisors knew their training or supervision policies were likely to cause constitutional violations.

The court dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act retaliation claim because omitting information from Larson’s accommodation appeal did not qualify as an adverse action serious enough to dissuade a reasonable person from seeking an accommodation or filing an appeal. The court also dismissed the denial-of-treatment claim. It held that delayed or disputed treatment, negligent misdiagnosis, and dissatisfaction with treatment did not establish the deliberate-indifference standard applicable to civilly committed people at MSOP, which requires a mental state similar to criminal recklessness.

The court allowed the official-capacity unlawful-punishment claim and the three disability-discrimination claims against DHS to proceed. The court did not decide whether Larson would ultimately prevail on those claims.

Disposition

The court overruled Larson’s objections and adopted the report and recommendation. It granted Woods’s motion to dismiss. It denied in part and granted in part the DHS defendants’ motion to dismiss: claims against MSOP were dismissed with prejudice; individual-capacity claims against the DHS defendants were dismissed without prejudice; official-capacity claims for damages were dismissed with prejudice; and only claim 1 for declaratory and injunctive relief against the DHS defendants in their official capacities and claims 4 through 6 for declaratory and injunctive relief against DHS were allowed to proceed.