Peterson v. Washington County Jail

Background

Brandon Robert Peterson was incarcerated at the Washington County Jail from February 4, 2018, through May 24, 2018. Peterson, who has bipolar disorder, alleged that conditions and events during his incarceration violated constitutional rights and state law. His claims included excessive force, failure to intervene, deliberate indifference to medical needs, conditions of confinement, municipal liability against Washington County, and state-law tort claims.

After an earlier appeal, the Eighth Circuit left for trial Peterson’s federal excessive-force claim against Sergeant Brandon Olson concerning Olson’s use of chemical spray on May 19, 2018. The present order addressed the defendants’ post-remand motion for summary judgment and related arguments concerning the remaining conditions-of-confinement, municipal-liability, and state-law claims.

Conditions of Confinement

Peterson alleged that his nearly 100 days in segregation, confinement in his cell for 23 hours a day, restrictions on clothing and other necessities, inadequate hygiene, and occasional denial of medication and phone calls violated the Eighth Amendment. The court held that the record did not show deprivations serious enough to support a constitutional claim. It also held that, even if the conditions violated the Eighth Amendment, the asserted right was not clearly established under the circumstances. The defendants were therefore entitled to qualified immunity, a protection that generally prevents personal liability when an official did not violate a clearly established right.

The court granted summary judgment on the conditions-of-confinement claim and dismissed Count 1 with prejudice.

Municipal-Liability Claim

Peterson asserted a municipal-liability claim against Washington County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that the County was responsible for official policies, an unofficial custom, and inadequate training concerning mentally ill inmates.

The court rejected the claim under each theory. It held that Commander Roger Heinen’s Care Plans for Peterson involved discretionary day-to-day decisions, not official policymaking for the County. It also held that Peterson had not shown an underlying constitutional violation or sufficient evidence of a widespread unconstitutional custom. Finally, Peterson had not connected the alleged training deficiencies to a constitutional violation or shown that the County had notice that its training was inadequate and likely to cause one.

The court granted summary judgment on the Monell claim and dismissed Count 4 with prejudice.

State-Law Claims Against Nonmedical Officials

Peterson asserted state-law claims for assault, battery, unauthorized use of force, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court applied Minnesota’s official-immunity doctrine, which generally protects public officials from personal liability for discretionary acts unless they committed a willful or malicious wrong.

The court held that Heinen and John Warneke were entitled to official immunity for their discretionary decisions concerning Peterson’s Care Plans, restrictions, segregation, civil-commitment efforts, meetings, and review of use-of-force reports. It also held that Brandon Olson, Nicholas Klinkner, Rebecca Dyck, David Frantsi, Jennifer Glassmaker, Vincent Scheele, and Anthony De La Rosa were entitled to official immunity for the uses of force and related failure-to-intervene claims arising on February 19, February 23, February 25, March 24, and May 1, 2018. The court relied in part on the Eighth Circuit’s determination that the conduct during those incidents was objectively reasonable or did not violate a clearly established right.

The court therefore dismissed with prejudice Counts 10 through 15 insofar as they were asserted against Heinen, Warneke, Cahill, Frantsi, Glassmaker, Dyck, Scheele, and De La Rosa. All of Peterson’s state-law claims against Olson were dismissed with prejudice except to the extent they concerned the May 19, 2018 incident. Counts 10 through 12 were also dismissed with prejudice as asserted against Stephanie Kaphing, Melinda Leibel, and Warneke.

Medical Staff and Remaining State-Law Claims

The court declined to apply official immunity to Kaphing and Leibel’s medical-care decisions. Under Minnesota law, medical judgment by government-employed medical professionals is not the type of discretion protected by official immunity in these circumstances.

The court found genuine disputes of material fact about whether Kaphing and Leibel departed from the applicable medical standard of care and whether any departure caused Peterson’s injuries. It therefore denied summary judgment on Peterson’s negligence claim against Kaphing and Leibel. The court also stated that Count 15, although labeled intentional infliction of emotional distress, appeared to allege negligent infliction of emotional distress; to the extent it was coextensive with the negligence claim, it also survived summary judgment.

Washington County received summary judgment on the state-law claims covered by the officials’ immunity, including claims involving Heinen and Warneke and claims involving Cahill, Frantsi, Glassmaker, Dyck, Scheele, De La Rosa, and Olson for the February 19, February 23, February 25, March 24, and May 1 incidents. The court denied the County summary judgment on claims related to Olson’s May 19 conduct and on claims against Kaphing and Leibel concerning their medical care of Peterson.

Order

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment. The conditions-of-confinement claim and Monell claim were dismissed with prejudice. Specified state-law claims were also dismissed with prejudice based on official immunity or because they were asserted against defendants not involved in the relevant conduct. The remaining claims for trial are the state-law claims related to Olson’s actions during the May 19, 2018 incident and the negligence and negligent emotional-distress claims against Kaphing and Leibel. The federal excessive-force claim against Olson concerning the May 19 incident had already remained for trial after the Eighth Circuit’s remand.