Hazley v. Hennepin Cty Med. Ctr

Background

Glenn Kevin Hazley alleged that he was an inmate at the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center in November 2020. He alleged that he was placed in a cell with another inmate who later was discovered to have COVID-19. Jail officials removed that inmate after learning of the infection, but Hazley alleged that he became infected and continued to experience extreme tiredness, shortness of breath, joint and muscle pain, anxiety, depression, and loss of smell and taste.

Hazley sought money damages from Hennepin County Medical Center, the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center, and several listed officials and employees, including D. Hutchinsen, identified as the “Head Sheriff.” His complaint referred generally to a “violation of civil rights,” while his civil cover sheet identified the Eighth Amendment and cruel-and-unusual punishment or conditions of confinement.

Screening analysis

Because Hazley was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental entities or employees, the complaint was subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At screening, the court must identify viable claims or dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The report states that factual allegations are accepted as true at this stage, but the complaint must contain enough facts to make relief plausible.

The report treated the complaint as attempting to bring constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It identified two problems. First, Hazley did not specifically allege what each defendant did. The report explained that § 1983 liability requires a direct connection between a particular defendant’s conduct and the alleged constitutional violation. A county also cannot be held liable merely because one of its employees allegedly acted unlawfully; the plaintiff must identify an unlawful county policy or custom. Hazley instead alleged vaguely that correctional officers failed to follow “procedures and protocols.”

The report also concluded that the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center was not a legal entity that could be sued. As to D. Hutchinsen, the complaint alleged only that he should have ensured that staff received training concerning pandemic-exposure guidelines. The report characterized that allegation as conclusory, even though a supervisory official can sometimes be liable for failing to train subordinates.

Second, the report concluded that the allegations did not plausibly establish a constitutional violation. It characterized the claim as an allegation that jail officials failed to protect Hazley from a known danger, which would arise under the Fourteenth Amendment for a pretrial detainee rather than under the Eighth Amendment. Such a claim requires more than an injury occurring in custody; it requires deliberate or callous indifference to the inmate’s safety. The report stated that negligence, including gross negligence, is insufficient.

The report found no fair basis to infer deliberate indifference. Hazley did not allege that officials knew the other inmate had COVID-19 and nevertheless refused to take preventive measures. Instead, he acknowledged that officials immediately removed the inmate after learning of the infection. Hazley also did not identify what procedures or protocols should have been implemented. The report therefore concluded that he had not pleaded a viable § 1983 claim. It further stated that no other federal claim was apparent and that the complaint did not establish original jurisdiction over any possible state-law claim.

Recommended disposition

Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended that the matter be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The report also recommended that Hazley’s application to proceed without paying fees upfront be denied, that he be directed to pay the unpaid balance of the statutory filing fee—$317.96—in installments, and that the Clerk notify the authorities at the institution where he was confined about that obligation.

The document is a Report and Recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court. The notice states that it is not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that specific written objections may be filed within 14 days after service.