Cox v. Commissioner of Department of Human Services

Background

Samuel Cox, a client of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP), filed this lawsuit after MSOP officials denied his May 5, 2026 request to replace his roommate with another MSOP client of his choosing. The complaint asserted that the refusal violated his federal constitutional rights and raised additional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the statute that allows certain claims against state officials for violating federal rights.

Cox applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. That application required the court to review the complaint before service under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court had previously noted that this was Cox’s sixth lawsuit filed that year concerning conditions at MSOP; the opinion states that four earlier lawsuits had been summarily dismissed during initial review and another had been recommended for summary dismissal.

Claims and analysis

The court concluded that Cox’s First Amendment religious claim was inadequately pleaded. The complaint briefly referred to being housed with someone whose behavior conflicted with Cox’s religious practices but did not otherwise identify conduct by MSOP officials that could amount to a violation of religious freedom.

The court likewise found insufficient Cox’s due-process claim based on being placed “on Omega 3” for an unknown number of days without certain property, including a television, blankets, a television-related item, or sheets. The court said this brief allegation was unrelated to the rest of the complaint and did not state a viable claim by itself.

Regarding Cox’s preferred-roommate request, the court stated that it was aware of no legal principle giving detainees a constitutional right to choose their roommates. It characterized the denial of Cox’s requested roommate as an annoyance rather than an actionable constitutional violation.

The court separately considered Cox’s allegation that MSOP officials honored roommate requests from other clients, particularly clients from “other cultures.” The court explained that the Equal Protection Clause requires similarly situated people to be treated alike, but found that Cox had not provided enough facts showing that any specific similarly situated MSOP client was treated differently. The fact that some other clients had received roommate requests that Cox had not received did not, standing alone, establish unequal treatment.

The court also analyzed Cox’s claim that he did not feel safe with his assigned roommate as a failure-to-protect claim. Such a claim requires facts showing both that the conditions objectively created a substantial risk of harm and that officials knew, or should have known, about the danger. The court noted that Cox had not suffered concrete physical harm, but explained that physical injury was not required if the conditions themselves were adequately alleged to be dangerous.

The court nevertheless found Cox’s allegations insufficient. It rejected the idea that double-bunking MSOP clients, by itself, violated the Constitution. It also found Cox’s descriptions of his roommate’s disciplinary history and alleged “sexual aggression” too vague. In addition, Cox had not plausibly alleged that MSOP’s policies and procedures were inadequate to protect him if a dangerous situation developed.

Recommended disposition

The Report and Recommendation recommends that the lawsuit be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It also recommends that Cox’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee be DENIED and that his motion for appointment of counsel be DENIED.

The document states that it is not a district-court order or judgment and therefore is not directly appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It states that a party may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation.