Olson v. Amatuzio

Background

Terry Lynn Olson was convicted in 2007 of the 1979 second-degree murder of Jeffrey Hammill. Olson maintained that he did not commit the crime. In 2003, Janis Amatuzio, then the Wright County medical examiner, reviewed the original autopsy, death certificate, and new evidence after the sheriff’s office reopened the investigation. She changed the classification of Hammill’s death from “undetermined” to “homicide.” Olson alleged that she relied solely on a witness’s statement and failed to conduct a reasonable investigation.

Olson was later indicted along with Dale Todd and Ron Michaels. Todd testified against Olson, although Olson alleged that Todd had contradicted the physical evidence, confessed under coercion, recanted, and told others that Olson was innocent or had been pressured to testify. Olson was convicted of second-degree murder, and his conviction and two petitions for post-conviction relief were affirmed or denied.

Olson later filed a federal petition challenging his conviction and sentence. That proceeding resulted in a stipulation under which the state agreed to resentencing under the 1980 sentencing guidelines. Olson was resentenced and released in September 2016. The court later vacated its conditional writ and dismissed Olson’s habeas petition with prejudice. The stipulation stated that the state did not admit fault or wrongdoing concerning the original sentence.

In this lawsuit, Olson asserted six claims: a civil-rights claim based on substantive due process against Amatuzio; negligence against Amatuzio; and civil-rights claims based on substantive due process, equal protection, the Eighth Amendment, and the prohibition against ex post facto laws against Tom Roy and Joan Fabian.

Civil-rights claims and the Heck rule

The defendants argued that Olson’s civil-rights claims were barred by the rule from Heck v. Humphrey. That rule generally prevents a person from using a civil-rights lawsuit to challenge conduct that would necessarily show that an existing criminal conviction or sentence is invalid, unless the conviction or sentence has been overturned, expunged, invalidated, or otherwise called into question through a qualifying legal proceeding.

The court held that Olson’s second-degree murder conviction remained intact. The court also concluded that the shortened sentence did not satisfy the rule because it resulted from the parties’ stipulation, which expressly disavowed any illegality concerning the sentence. Although the court had issued a conditional writ to facilitate resentencing, it later vacated that writ and dismissed Olson’s habeas petition with prejudice. The court therefore determined that Olson’s incarceration had not been legally invalidated and that his civil-rights claims were barred by Heck.

The court dismissed Counts I, III, IV, V, and VI with prejudice on that basis and did not reach the defendants’ alternative arguments concerning those claims.

Negligence claim

Olson alleged that Amatuzio negligently relied on Todd’s testimony when changing the classification of Hammill’s death and failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. The court applied Minnesota’s six-year statute of limitations for negligence claims. Because Amatuzio changed the death classification in 2005 and testified at Olson’s trial in 2007, the court concluded that Olson’s 2018 lawsuit was filed after the limitations period expired.

Olson argued that fraudulent concealment extended the filing deadline. Under that doctrine, intentional concealment can delay the limitations period until the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably could discover, the concealed facts. The court rejected the argument because Olson did not sufficiently allege that Amatuzio concealed the existence of the facts supporting his claim or that he acted diligently to discover them. Olson had been represented by counsel at trial and had the opportunity to question Amatuzio about her testimony. The court therefore held that fraudulent concealment did not extend the filing deadline and that the negligence claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

Disposition

Judge Donovan W. Frank granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss and ordered that Olson’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.