Boots v. Johnson

Background

Bill M. Boots sued Nathan Johnson, Kevin Carlson, Richard O’Connor, Thorne M. Torgerson, Julie Rose, Sara Kulas, Andrea M. Kosloski, and Kevin Moser in their individual and official capacities. The complaint alleged constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from an assault on Boots by another person residing at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. Boots alleged that the defendants knew about the incompatibility between him and his assailant and failed to follow proper procedures.

The magistrate judge recommended granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing claims for monetary damages against the defendants in their official capacities with prejudice and dismissing the remaining claims without prejudice. The recommendation also called for denying as moot Boots’s motion for an additional storage bin and dismissing the action. Boots objected, arguing that he sought damages against the defendants only in their individual capacities, that several defendants were personally involved in enforcing an allegedly offensive policy, and that Johnson and Carlson knew of a substantial risk to his safety but failed to respond reasonably.

Court’s Analysis

After reviewing the record and the objections, the court found that the complaint lacked enough specific facts to state a claim for relief. As to O’Connor, Torgerson, Rose, Kulas, Kosloski, and Moser, the court agreed that Boots had not adequately alleged their personal involvement. The court also rejected imposing liability on those defendants simply because of their supervisory or related roles.

As to Johnson and Carlson, the court concluded that the allegations did not sufficiently show deliberate indifference—that is, knowing about and disregarding a substantial risk of serious harm. Even assuming that the defendants knew about the incompatibility between Boots and the other resident and knew about a no-contact order, the court held that those allegations did not plausibly establish deliberate indifference.

The court noted that Boots’s complaint referred to Fourteenth Amendment claims, not Eighth Amendment claims. Because Boots was civilly committed rather than incarcerated, the court stated that his claims properly arose under the Fourteenth Amendment, while adopting the analysis using an Eighth Amendment standard because the protections were comparable in this context. The court also declined to reach additional proposed grounds for dismissal, including failure to allege an official policy or custom, failure to show a likely future injury, and qualified immunity.

Disposition

Judge Donovan W. Frank overruled Boots’s objections and adopted Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s Report and Recommendation. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss as follows:

- Claims against the defendants in their official capacities seeking monetary damages were dismissed with prejudice. - All other claims against the defendants in their official and individual capacities were dismissed without prejudice. - Boots’s motion for an additional storage bin was denied as moot. - The action was dismissed, and judgment was ordered entered accordingly.