Rivera v. Walanis

Background

Plaintiff Alveto Rivera, identified in the opinion as a client of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP), filed suit against three individuals — Meg Walanis, Kara Lehman, and Austin Wuebker — in both their individual and official capacities. The complaint appears to raise at least two federal constitutional claims: (1) denial of access to the courts, and (2) deprivation of property without due process under federal law. Rivera also asserted state-law claims. He filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying filing fees) and moved for appointment of counsel.

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard reviewed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a federal statute that requires courts to dismiss lawsuits filed by plaintiffs seeking to proceed without paying fees when the claims are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a valid legal claim. Judge Bullard issued a Report and Recommendation on January 7, 2026, recommending dismissal of the entire action. She separately denied Rivera's motion to appoint counsel.

Rivera's Objections

Rivera filed objections raising five arguments:

1. Bias: He claimed Judge Bullard was biased against him. The court found no support for this assertion, noting that an unfavorable but carefully reasoned ruling does not demonstrate bias.

2. Connection to prior lawsuit: Rivera argued this case had nothing to do with his prior lawsuit. Judge Bullard had correctly determined that the prior lawsuit was the underlying matter supporting his denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim — a necessary element of such a claim.

3. Applicability of prison law to MSOP clients: Rivera contended that the legal standard applied by Judge Bullard — derived from Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), governing prisoners' right of access to courts — did not apply to him because he is an MSOP client, not a prisoner. The court rejected this argument, citing Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1046 (8th Cir. 2012), which applied Lewis v. Casey to an MSOP client.

4. Property deprivation claim: Rivera disputed Judge Bullard's conclusion that he failed to plausibly allege his property was taken pursuant to an established state procedure (a required element to state a procedural due process claim under federal law when a post-deprivation remedy is available). The court agreed with Judge Bullard: the complaint contained no allegations indicating the employees acted pursuant to an official procedure.

5. Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims: Rivera objected to the decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction (the authority of a federal court to hear related state-law claims alongside valid federal claims) over his state-law claims once his federal claims were found to lack merit. The court affirmed this conclusion, citing Hervey v. County of Koochiching, 527 F.3d 711, 726–27 (8th Cir. 2008).

Standard of Review

Because Rivera objected, Judge Tostrud reviewed the denial of the motion to appoint counsel for clear error under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 72.2(a)(3), and reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo (independently and from scratch) under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b)(3).

Disposition

Judge Tostrud overruled all of Rivera's objections, accepted the Report and Recommendation, and affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order denying appointment of counsel. The court ordered:

- Rivera's federal law claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (he cannot refile them in federal court). - Rivera's state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (he may potentially pursue them elsewhere). - Rivera's application to proceed without paying court fees is DENIED.

The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.