Rivera v. Flesvig

Background

Plaintiff Alveto Rivera, proceeding without a lawyer (pro se) and civilly committed in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP), sued four individuals — Evelyn Flesvig, Charles S. Fai, Philip W. Olson, and Anabelle Ochoa — in both their individual and official capacities. All four are employees of Direct Care and Treatment (DCT), identified in the opinion as a state agency. Rivera's complaint centered on his transfer within MSOP from the Moose Lake facility to the St. Peter facility, an alleged reset in his treatment progress, and claims that defendants misled him about the purpose of a neuropsychological test and then used those results in the transfer decision. Rivera sought monetary relief and asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (a federal law allowing civil rights suits against state actors), as well as invoking the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Procedural History

United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on December 19, 2025, recommending dismissal of Rivera's complaint without prejudice and denial of his application to proceed without paying filing fees (in forma pauperis) as moot. Rivera filed objections on January 5, 2026. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district judge reviews de novo (fresh, without deference) those portions of an R&R to which a party specifically objects.

Analysis

Eleventh Amendment Immunity — Official-Capacity Claims

Because the defendants are employees of DCT, a state agency, claims against them in their official capacities are effectively claims against the State of Minnesota. The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for monetary damages against a state in federal court unless the state has waived its immunity or Congress has overridden it. The court held that Minnesota has not waived its immunity for § 1983 damages actions, and § 1983 itself does not abrogate that immunity, citing Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). Accordingly, the official-capacity damages claims were barred.

Procedural Due Process — No Protected Liberty Interest

A procedural due process claim (the right to fair procedures before the government takes away a protected interest) requires, as a threshold matter, that a plaintiff identify a protected liberty or property interest. The court held Rivera failed to do so. Rivera's theory was that his transfer between MSOP facilities and the resulting reset in treatment progression implicated a liberty interest. The court rejected this, noting that generally no liberty interest attaches to a specific place of confinement absent a drastic departure from the ordinary conditions of a secure facility. The complaint alleged only an intra-program transfer and a treatment reset — not materially different conditions of confinement, additional physical restraints, or comparable hardship. Without a cognizable liberty interest, no procedural due process claim could proceed.

Substantive Due Process — 'Shock the Conscience' Standard

Substantive due process (a constitutional protection against government conduct so arbitrary or egregious it violates fundamental fairness, regardless of procedures used) is reserved for conduct that 'shocks the conscience,' per County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998). Rivera alleged defendants misled him about the purpose of a neuropsychological test and used the results to support the transfer decision. Accepting those allegations as true, the court found the conduct described — at most misrepresentation or poor professional judgment in a treatment setting — did not approach the level of brutal, arbitrary, or oppressive conduct required to satisfy the constitutional threshold.

Fifth and Sixth Amendment Claims

The court rejected Rivera's reliance on the Fifth Amendment because that amendment's due process clause applies to federal actors, not state officials; any due process claim against these defendants arises, if at all, under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court rejected the Sixth Amendment claim because that amendment applies only to criminal prosecutions, and Rivera's claims concern civil commitment and treatment — not a criminal proceeding.

Supplemental Jurisdiction Over State-Law Claims

Because all federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction (the power to hear related state-law claims alongside federal ones) over any state-law claims, citing Wilson v. Miller, 821 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2016).

Disposition

Judge Blackwell overruled Rivera's objections, accepted the R&R (based on the court's own independent analysis rather than wholesale adoption of the magistrate's reasoning), dismissed Rivera's complaint without prejudice, and denied Rivera's application to proceed without paying fees as moot.