Smuda v. Johnston
Richard Allen Smuda v. Nancy Johnston (MSOP), State of Minnesota, Minnesota Sex Offender Program
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:24-cv-03215
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 17
In Smuda v. Johnston, Judge Micko recommended partly granting dismissal, preserving ADA claims while rejecting the remaining claims and motions.
Richard Allen Smuda’s ADA claims against the State of Minnesota and Nancy Johnston in her official capacity may proceed under the recommendation, while the ADA claim against MSOP and the remaining § 1983 claim are subject to dismissal. Smuda’s two monetary-relief motions were denied without prejudice, and his default-judgment motion was denied with prejudice.
What happened
Richard Allen Smuda, who is civilly committed at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, sued Nancy Johnston, the State of Minnesota, and the program. He challenged conditions and medical care, including the removal of his breathing machine, and raised constitutional and disability-discrimination claims.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the remaining claims. Smuda also sought monetary relief and default judgment. The court concluded that the program itself cannot be sued, that Smuda’s constitutional claim did not qualify for the requested prospective relief, and that his disability claim could continue against the State and Johnston in her official capacity based on his allegations about his breathing machine.
Judge Micko recommended granting the dismissal motion in part and denying it in part. The court ordered Smuda’s two monetary-relief motions denied without prejudice and his default-judgment motion denied with prejudice. The dismissal recommendation is not directly appealable because it must first be reviewed by the District Court.
The detailed version
- Smuda v. Johnston · No. 0:24-cv-03215
- Patrick Schiltz
- Jan. 27, 2026
Background
Richard Smuda is civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person and is a client at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). In his amended complaint, he challenged his Minnesota commitment and alleged constitutional violations involving conditions of confinement and medical care. The claims remaining after earlier screening concerned a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Nancy Johnston in her official capacity for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief, and a Title II Americans with Disabilities Act claim against the State of Minnesota, MSOP, and Johnston in her official capacity.
Smuda alleged, among other things, that MSOP staff moved him to a high-security area, searched him, used pepper spray, gave him incorrect medication on one occasion, and took his continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine. He alleged that he stops breathing 184 times per hour while asleep. Medical records submitted with his filings described very severe obstructive sleep apnea, severe oxygen desaturation, and a CPAP machine as the initial treatment choice.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
The court recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part.
- MSOP: The court concluded that MSOP is a program operated by the Minnesota Department of Human Services, not a separate legal entity capable of being sued. It therefore recommended granting dismissal of the ADA claim against MSOP. - Section 1983 claim: The court recommended granting dismissal of Smuda’s § 1983 claim against Johnston in her official capacity. The court concluded that Smuda did not allege that the challenged conditions were ongoing or that he sought relief properly characterized as prospective. It also concluded that the allegations supporting the ADA claim could not independently support a parallel § 1983 claim based on the same conduct. In its analysis, the court stated that the conditions-of-confinement components fell outside the exception allowing certain suits against state officials and should be dismissed with prejudice. - ADA claims against the State and Johnston: The court recommended denying dismissal. At the pleading stage, Smuda sufficiently alleged that he has a disability, was qualified for the benefit of remedial CPAP treatment, and was denied that benefit because MSOP personnel took his CPAP machine and did not replace it. The court also concluded that the allegations were sufficient to support deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, and that the alleged conduct would violate the Fourteenth Amendment. For that reason, the court concluded that the State’s sovereign-immunity defense did not bar these ADA claims.
Other Motions
The court ordered Smuda’s Motion for Compensatory Relief and Motion to Keep Monetary, Compensatory, and Punitive Damages Relief denied without prejudice. The court said those motions were not properly before it because the defendants had not moved to dismiss the compensatory-damages claims; it stated that discovery would provide a better basis to determine what damages, if any, may be available.
The court ordered Smuda’s Motion for Default Judgment denied with prejudice. It found that the defendants filed their reply brief on time and explained that, even if the reply had been late or missing, an optional reply brief would not support default judgment.
Effect of the Filing
This document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on the motion to dismiss, together with an order deciding Smuda’s other motions. The report and recommendation is not a final District Court judgment and is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. The notice states that parties may file written objections within 14 days after being served.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.