Schlumpberger v. Osborne

Background

Allyn Lee Schlumpberger, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Dana Osborne, Patrick Rodning, Troy Basaraba, Security Manager, Kevin Moser, Julianna L. Beavens, and Richard O’Connor in their individual and official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that his constitutional rights were violated when he was placed in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program’s High Security Area, also called Protective Isolation, after refusing to move to a newly assigned room.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally sufficient claim. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion and dismissing the action without prejudice. The recommendation addressed claims under the Fourteenth Amendment for procedural and substantive due process, as well as Fourth Amendment claims based on alleged searches, seizures, and excessive force.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the disputed portions of the recommendation independently because Schlumpberger filed specific objections. It rejected his argument that a successor could be substituted for Troy Basaraba. Basaraba had died before the lawsuit began, and the court held that the substitution rule for an official who dies while an action is pending did not apply.

The court agreed that claims for money damages against the defendants in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. It noted that claims for prospective injunctive relief were not barred on that ground, but concluded that those claims failed for the same pleading reasons discussed elsewhere in the opinion.

On procedural due process, the court recognized that people civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program have a protected liberty interest in freedom from unnecessary bodily restraint. But the complaint did not allege that Schlumpberger lacked notice of the reason for his placement or that he was denied an opportunity to challenge it. The complaint stated that he had advance notice of the required move and that he was placed in Protective Isolation because he refused to comply. It also did not allege that available review or grievance procedures were unavailable to him.

On substantive due process, the court held that the alleged conduct was not described with facts showing conduct so egregious that it shocked the conscience. Schlumpberger alleged that the placement was unreasonable and arbitrary, but he did not allege deprivation of basic needs, a substantial risk of serious harm, or other outrageous conditions.

The court also agreed that the complaint did not allege that Schlumpberger was subjected to a search. References to strip searches in his objections were not included in the complaint. To the extent the complaint described removal from his room, placement in Protective Isolation, or the use of restraints as seizures, the court treated those allegations as liberty restrictions addressed under due process. The only allegations that could support an excessive-force claim stated that team members instructed Schlumpberger to turn around for restraints and that he complied. The court found those allegations insufficient to plausibly show excessive force.

Disposition

The court overruled Schlumpberger’s objections, adopted Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung’s January 25, 2019 Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The action was dismissed without prejudice, and the court directed that judgment be entered.