McHorse v. The State of Minnesota and Keith Ellison

Background

Bradly Allen McHorse alleged that Minnesota’s licensing agencies license no facility other than the Forensic Mental Health Program at the St. Peter Regional Treatment Center to treat people committed as “mentally ill and dangerous.” He argued that this policy made Minnesota the sole regulator, licensor, licensee, insurer, and recipient of insurance funds in the market for those treatment facilities, allegedly violating Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

McHorse also alleged that Minnesota violated the Fourteenth Amendment by housing or boarding civil detainees in county jails and other institutions while they waited for an available bed at the Forensic Mental Health Program. He appeared to invoke Minnesota Statute § 253B.18, part of the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act, as another basis for challenging Minnesota’s licensing and placement practices.

The report identified three claims: a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Fourteenth Amendment; a Sherman Act monopoly claim; and a claim under Minnesota law. McHorse requested a temporary restraining order, an order requiring review of people on the treatment-bed backlog to determine whether community care was available, and financial compensation. The opinion states that he resides at the Forensic Mental Health Program and does not allege that he is waiting in a county jail, was denied admission, or was personally denied treatment. It also states that the complaint attributes no specific act or decision to Keith Ellison.

Analysis

The report first addressed the application to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court must dismiss an action at any time if it is frivolous or seeks money from a defendant protected from that relief. A frivolous claim lacks an arguable legal or factual basis. The report also noted that a court must dismiss an action when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacks legal authority to hear the dispute.

The report concluded that the Eleventh Amendment barred the claims against the State of Minnesota because Minnesota had not consented to suit and Congress had not removed the State’s immunity for claims under § 1983 or the Sherman Act. It also concluded that any official-capacity damages claim against Ellison was effectively a claim against Minnesota and was barred.

The report considered the exception that can allow a suit against a state official for prospective relief to stop an ongoing violation of federal law. It found that the complaint did not allege facts showing that Ellison personally made, enforced, or threatened to enforce the challenged licensing, placement, or treatment decisions. The report also stated that this exception cannot be used to require state officials to follow state law.

The report separately found that McHorse lacked Article III standing. Standing requires a plaintiff to allege a concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury that is traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be remedied by the requested relief. Because McHorse was already housed at the Forensic Mental Health Program, the requested review of other people on the backlog would benefit those people rather than him. The report therefore recommended dismissal of claims based on a generalized statewide grievance or seeking relief for others.

Finally, the report found that any individual-capacity claims against Ellison were factually frivolous because the complaint alleged no conduct by him.

Recommended disposition

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction to the extent it asserted claims against Minnesota, claims against Ellison in his official capacity, or claims seeking relief for other people. She separately recommended that any individual-capacity claims against Ellison be dismissed without prejudice as frivolous. She also recommended denying McHorse’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot.

The document is a report and recommendation, not a final district-court order or judgment. The notice states that it is not directly appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that the parties may file written objections within the stated period.