McGuire v. Governor Tim Walz

Background

The court reviewed Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty’s Report and Recommendation after David J. McGuire objected to it. The recommendation was to dismiss McGuire’s complaint without prejudice and deny as moot his application to proceed without paying filing fees and his motion to appoint counsel. Because McGuire objected, Judge Tostrud reviewed the recommendation independently under the governing statute and local rule.

The complaint named Governor Tim Walz and the other defendants listed in the caption. McGuire’s allegations concerned, among other things, medical treatment, disciplinary retaliation, classification and lockdowns, alleged conspiracy, disability-law claims, and state-law claims. The caption also stated that the case was brought by others similarly situated, but the court noted that the complaint was not filed as a class action and that a non-lawyer litigant proceeding without a lawyer could not represent a class.

Reasons for Dismissal

Medical care. McGuire alleged that Tanya Effler characterized his foot problem as a bone spur and advised icing and Tylenol, and that defendants allowed his need for urgent medical care to worsen while he walked on a hairline fracture. He also referred to a blockage, a hernia, a needed operation, knee-replacement surgery, surgery for a broken nose, and a concussion. The court agreed with the recommendation that these allegations did not adequately plead deliberate indifference. The recommendation characterized them as a difference of opinion about medical judgment or treatment. The court also found that McGuire did not explain how medical-transport data supported the required elements of a deliberate-indifference claim: an objectively serious medical need and officials’ actual knowledge of, and deliberate disregard for, that need.

Retaliation. McGuire argued that he had adequately alleged retaliation, but the court found that he did not identify where the complaint alleged that the disciplinary hearing committee was biased against him. To the extent he argued that requiring him to attend Alcoholics Anonymous or chemical-dependency treatment was retaliatory, he did not show that defendants took those actions because he exercised a constitutional right.

Due process. McGuire argued that loss of classification and lockdowns violated due process because defendants exaggerated security and treatment concerns. The court found that this did not show a deprivation of a protected liberty interest. It also rejected his argument that a policy restricting access to a particular gym violated his rights, relying on the cited conclusion that losing access to that gym was not a protected-liberty-interest deprivation. The court further rejected his request for counsel or Department of Justice assistance to help make the claim plausible. The relevant question was whether the existing allegations stated a claim that was plausible on its face, and the court stated that counsel need not be appointed to make an otherwise dismissal-worthy claim plausible.

Conspiracy. McGuire cited allegations that supervising defendants had a policy allowing employees without legal or medical training to be hired. The court found that these allegations did not plausibly plead the elements of a civil-rights conspiracy: an agreement to deprive him of constitutional rights, an overt act by at least one participant, and injury caused by that act.

Disability claims. McGuire argued that the defendants had federal responsibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The court disagreed with his characterization of the recommendation and concluded that he had not plausibly alleged liability under either statute.

State-law claims. McGuire argued that other people at the facility were also suffering violations. The court held that he did not have standing—the legal ability to assert a claim based on an injury—to assert other people’s injuries. It therefore found no reason to reject the recommendation not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims after the federal claims were dismissed.

Disposition

Judge Tostrud overruled McGuire’s objection and accepted the Report and Recommendation. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. It dismissed the federal causes of action for failure to state a plausible claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and dismissed the state-law causes of action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court denied as moot McGuire’s application to proceed without paying filing fees and his motion for appointment of counsel. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.