Rivera v. Stewart

Background

Alveto Rivera, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. Rivera alleged that Jonathan Stewart and Christopher Eckart sexually touched Rivera during pat searches at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program’s Moose Lake facility in March 2025. Rivera also alleged that other Minnesota Sex Offender Program employees failed to protect Rivera or adequately respond to the reports, that Georgia Gates inadequately investigated the reports, and that Trisha Johnson retaliated after Rivera complained by ending Rivera’s kitchen vocational placement. The complaint also sought state-law damages for assault, battery, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, along with several forms of injunctive relief.

Screening analysis

Because Rivera requested fee-waiver status, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous or fail to state a claim. The court treated Trisha Johnson as a defendant even though she appeared in the complaint but not in the caption or party list.

The court concluded that:

- Official-capacity claims against the Minnesota Sex Offender Program defendants should be dismissed because the complaint did not allege an ongoing violation supporting prospective relief, and monetary claims against the state were barred by state immunity. - All claims against Georgia Gates should be dismissed because the complaint alleged only that Gates failed to investigate, and a private citizen has no standalone constitutional right to another person’s investigation or prosecution. - Failure-to-investigate allegations against Anthony M. Herring, Phil Olson, Blake Carey, and Charles S. Fri could remain as parts of Rivera’s separate failure-to-protect claims. - Claims based on the Prison Rape Elimination Act should be dismissed with prejudice because that law does not create a private right to sue. - Claims under the Minnesota Vulnerable Adults Act should be dismissed with prejudice because Rivera did not plead facts showing an exception to the law’s limits on claims by Minnesota Sex Offender Program detainees. - All claims against Nick Budnick should be dismissed without prejudice as frivolous because the complaint alleged no conduct by Budnick beyond identifying Budnick’s job title. - Any standalone Fourteenth Amendment procedural due-process claim based on losing the institutional job should be dismissed with prejudice because Minnesota Sex Offender Program detainees do not have a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest in institutional employment. - Rivera’s request for release from Minnesota Sex Offender Program custody should be dismissed without prejudice because a request challenging confinement must be brought through a petition for release from unlawful custody, which Rivera did not file. - Requests to order that Eckart be fired and that Eckart and Carey be criminally charged should be dismissed with prejudice because the court cannot direct prison administrators to impose employment discipline or force prosecutors to bring criminal charges.

Claims recommended to continue

If the recommendations are adopted, the surviving federal claims would be brought only against defendants in their individual capacities. They would include Rivera’s Fourteenth Amendment bodily-integrity claims against Stewart and Eckart; Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claims against Herring, Olson, Carey, Fri, Evelyn Flesvig, and Johnson; and Rivera’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Johnson based on the withdrawal of the kitchen vocational placement. Related state-law claims against Stewart, Eckart, Herring, Olson, Carey, Fri, Flesvig, and Johnson would also remain.

Disposition

Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended the stated dismissals and ordered that Rivera’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee be granted. The court directed the Clerk to notify the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office and send the complaint and order. It also directed the Attorney General’s Office to address waiver of service for Stewart, Eckart, Herring, Olson, Carey, Fri, Flesvig, and Johnson. The remaining defendants must answer or otherwise respond after the presiding district judge issues an order adopting or rejecting the recommendations. The report-and-recommendation portion is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit, and the order portion is not appealable until the case concludes.