Larson v. Executive Board of Direct Care and Treatment
Hollis J. Larson v. Executive Board of Direct Care and Treatment, Nancy Johnston, MSOP’s Executive Director; Terrance Kneisel, MSOP’s Facility Director; John Barry, MSOP’s Medical Director; Elizabeth Peterson, MSOP’s Assessment Department Director; Gary Ankarlo, MSOP Psychologist; Blake Carey, MSOP Group Supervisor; David Miles, MSOP Clinical Director; Katie MacDowell, MSOP Clinical Director; David Lindlbauer, MSOP Primary Therapist; Kayla Taylor, MSOP Primary Therapist; Nicole Boder, MSOP’s Health Services Director; Krista Gilpin, MSOP Registered Nurse; Andrew Christensen, DHS ADA Coordinator; all in their official capacities, and Direct Care and Treatment, DCT,1
- John Tunheim
- 0:23-cv-01823
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Hollis J. Larson v. Executive Board, Judge Tunheim granted summary judgment to defendants and dismissed Larson’s remaining punishment and disability claims with prejudice.
Hollis J. Larson and the remaining defendants, including Direct Care and Treatment and the listed officials sued in their official capacities. The ruling ends Larson’s remaining claims and bars refiling those claims because the action was dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In Hollis J. Larson v. Executive Board of Direct Care and Treatment, Hollis Larson challenged his confinement at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, alleging unlawful punishment under the Fourteenth Amendment and disability discrimination under federal and state statutes. He represented himself and objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant summary judgment for the defendants.
The court found no disputed facts requiring a trial. It ruled that Larson’s confinement conditions were connected to legitimate safety goals and were not unlawfully punitive. It also found no sufficient evidence that the defendants discriminated against Larson because of his post-traumatic stress disorder or failed to provide a required accommodation.
Judge John R. Tunheim adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissed Larson’s remaining claims with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Larson v. Executive Board of Direct Care and Treatment · No. 0:23-cv-01823
- John Tunheim
- May 7, 2026
Background
After the court had dismissed several of Hollis J. Larson’s claims, the remaining defendants moved for summary judgment on his remaining claims. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the record shows no genuine dispute over facts that could affect the result. Larson’s remaining claims alleged unlawful punishment under the Fourteenth Amendment and disability discrimination under federal and state statutes.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended granting the defendants’ motion and dismissing the remaining claims with prejudice. Larson objected. The district court reviewed the objections and adopted the recommendation.
Unlawful-Punishment Claim
The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on Larson’s Fourteenth Amendment claim. It explained that a confinement condition is unlawfully punitive when it is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective or is excessive in relation to that objective.
The court agreed with the magistrate judge that a prior appellate decision foreclosed Larson’s facial challenge to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program’s disciplinary policies. As to any challenge based on how those policies were applied to Larson, the court found no evidence that the custody decisions were intentionally punitive. It also agreed that the decisions were related to legitimate, non-punitive purposes, including facility and personal safety. The court noted the uncontested facts that Larson had threatened harm to himself, others, and facility property, and concluded that his placements and restrictions were not excessive in light of the continuing safety risks described in the record.
Disability-Discrimination Claim
The court also granted summary judgment to the defendants on Larson’s disability-discrimination claim. The court applied the requirements that a plaintiff show that he is a qualified person with a disability, was excluded from or denied the benefits of a facility’s services, programs, or activities or otherwise discriminated against, and suffered that treatment because of his disability.
Larson alleged that confinement decisions constituted discrimination related to his post-traumatic stress disorder. The court agreed with the magistrate judge that the record provided no basis to find that the defendants discriminated against Larson because of that condition or that it required a reasonable accommodation. Larson’s objections, the court said, largely repeated earlier arguments and did not identify facts sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
Disposition
Judge John R. Tunheim adopted the Report and Recommendation, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the action with prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.