Flores v. Moser
- Ann Montgomery
- 0:16-cv-01860
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 9
In Flores v. Moser, Judge Montgomery overruled Flores’s objections, denied leave to amend, and dismissed federal claims with prejudice and state claims without prejudice.
Mauro Flores’s federal constitutional claims cannot be refiled based on this order, while his state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice. The order also affects the six named defendants, who received judgment on the asserted claims.
What happened
In Flores v. Moser, Mauro Flores, a civilly committed detainee at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, sued program employees under a federal civil-rights law and asserted state tort claims. He alleged restrictions on his housing and movement, denial of a hearing and religious practice, inadequate medical care, failure to protect him, and inadequate employee training and supervision.
Flores objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation that the amended complaint be dismissed. He challenged the legal standards used for his due-process and medical-care claims, disputed dismissal of his state claims, and asked to amend his complaint again or refile it. The court rejected these arguments, finding that his allegations did not sufficiently state his federal claims and that he had not identified facts that another amendment would add.
Judge Ann D. Montgomery overruled the objections and denied leave to amend. The court amended its earlier order so that Flores’s first through sixth causes of action—the federal claims—were dismissed with prejudice, while the seventh and eighth causes of action—the state-law claims—were dismissed without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Flores v. Moser · No. 0:16-cv-01860
- Ann Montgomery
- Mar. 7, 2019
Background
Mauro Flores, proceeding without a lawyer, is a civilly committed detainee at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. He sued Kevin Moser, Terry Kneisel, Peter Puffer, Courtney Menten, Paul Mayfield, and Shelby Richardson, identified as employees of that program. His amended complaint asserted federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and supplemental Minnesota-law claims.
The federal claims alleged substantive and procedural due-process violations, denial of religious exercise, deliberate indifference to medical needs, failure to protect him from foreseeable harm, and failure to train and supervise employees. The state-law claims alleged intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to allege enough facts to state plausible constitutional claims. Flores did not respond to that motion or request permission to amend before the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation. The case was later stayed while related proceedings occurred, then the stay was lifted. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing all claims, with the state-law claims dismissed without prejudice. The district court adopted that recommendation and entered judgment before receiving Flores’s objections.
The Court’s Analysis
The court treated Flores’s objections as timely and reviewed them on their merits, even though they arrived after the earlier order adopting the recommendation and the judgment had been entered.
On procedural due process, the court held that the standard from Sandin v. Conner applies to civilly committed people. That standard asks whether a confinement condition imposed an atypical and significant hardship compared with the ordinary incidents of confined life. Applying that standard, the court agreed that Flores’s placement in a small behavioral unit based on his disciplinary classification did not impose a significant and unusual hardship in relation to ordinary life at the facility.
On substantive due process, the court held that Flores had not alleged conduct that was conscience-shocking or that violated a fundamental liberty interest. The court also agreed that damages claims against the defendants in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Because the amended complaint stated that each defendant was sued individually and officially and sought damages from each, the court concluded that the complaint included official-capacity damages claims.
On medical care, the court applied the deliberate-indifference standard. Under that standard, a plaintiff must show an objectively serious medical need and that defendants actually knew of and deliberately disregarded that need. The court found Flores’s allegations about inadequate mental-health services too vague. It also found that the complaint did not identify a particular defendant’s personal involvement or facts showing that any defendant knew of and deliberately disregarded a serious medical need.
The court addressed possible excessive-force and equal-protection claims mentioned in an affidavit but not expressly pleaded in the amended complaint. Flores clarified that he did not intend to assert those claims. The court therefore found no need to change the recommendation regarding claims he had not actually alleged.
The court denied Flores’s request to amend again. It noted that he had already amended once, had not opposed the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint before the recommendation was issued, had not identified the additional facts he would allege, and had not shown how another amendment would cure the deficiencies. The court also denied his alternative request to have the amended complaint dismissed without prejudice so that he could refile it.
Disposition
Judge Ann D. Montgomery overruled Flores’s objections and denied his request for leave to amend. The court amended the order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to specify that Flores’s First through Sixth Causes of Action were dismissed with prejudice. It specified that his Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action were dismissed without prejudice and directed that an amended judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.