Green v. Lake

Background

Anthony C. Green, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against employees of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP), officials from the Carlton County Sheriff’s Office, and the Moose Lake police chief. The lawsuit concerned events in 2010, 2011, and 2012. Green alleged that MSOP employees forcibly removed his clothing during unclothed visual body strip searches, used excessive force during an altercation, placed him in a high-security area for extended periods without adequate procedural protections, and handcuffed him for four hours. He also alleged that Carlton County deputies unlawfully arrested him and failed to prevent a 2012 search.

Green asserted claims under the Fourth Amendment concerning unreasonable searches and seizures and excessive force, and under the Fourteenth Amendment concerning procedural and substantive due process. He also challenged MSOP’s search and protective-isolation policies. The magistrate judge recommended granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. Green objected and asked the court to accept his one-day-late objection. The Carlton County defendants separately objected to a statement in the recommendation that Deputy Jesse Peterson conducted the 2012 search.

Rulings on the Objections and Late Filing

The court sustained the Carlton County defendants’ objection. It found that the amended complaint and the record did not indicate that Peterson conducted the search; instead, the allegations stated that MSOP staff performed it after Peterson removed the Carlton County handcuffs and allowed MSOP staff to apply its handcuffs. The court therefore modified the recommendation to remove references to Peterson conducting the search.

The court granted Green’s Motion to Accept Late Submission. Green received the recommendation on February 4, 2019, had until February 19 to mail his objection, and mailed it on February 20. The defendants did not argue that the one-day delay prejudiced them. The court overruled Green’s objection to the recommendation.

Excessive-Force Claims

For the alleged March 2011 altercation, Green claimed that Greg Swenson shoved him from behind and that Nicole Marvel twisted his handcuffs while removing his shoes and headwear. The court held that the alleged facts did not show that the force was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. Although the absence of more than minimal injury was not dispositive, it suggested that the force was minimal. The court also considered the alleged security-related reasons for the actions.

The court further held that Swenson and Marvel would be entitled to qualified immunity even if Green had stated a plausible excessive-force claim. Qualified immunity generally protects officials from damages unless they violated a clearly established constitutional right. The court concluded that, at the time of the March 2011 incident, it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer that the alleged conduct was unlawful, particularly because Swenson caused no injury and Marvel caused only minimal injury. The court also held that Sayovitz’s alleged statement about seeking approval for a body search was not an actionable excessive-force claim because verbal threats are not constitutional violations under § 1983.

Search-and-Seizure Claims

The court held that Green had not alleged facts showing that the MSOP searches were unreasonable. MSOP’s policy required unclothed body searches when a detainee entered a new security area or left the facility. The court found that the policy advanced institutional security and public safety. It also held that cutting off Green’s clothes during the 2010 and 2012 searches was reasonable because he refused to consent to the searches. The fact that female staff allegedly observed the 2012 search did not make the search unreasonable.

The court rejected Green’s claims concerning his placement in the high-security area and his four hours in handcuffs. It stated that a professional’s decision to place a civilly committed person in such an area is presumptively valid unless it substantially departs from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards. Green had not alleged such a departure. The court also found it reasonable to keep him handcuffed while staff waited for him to consent to a search for weapons or contraband.

The court rejected the unlawful-arrest claim against the Carlton County defendants because Green alleged that they served him with an arrest warrant. It also rejected any claim that those defendants failed to prevent the 2012 search, reasoning that the search itself was constitutional and that the Carlton County defendants lacked the means to prevent an MSOP search performed at the MSOP facility under MSOP policy.

Due Process Claims

The court held that Green had not shown a procedural due process violation based on being held in the high-security area for more than 24 hours or being handcuffed for four hours. Those conditions did not impose a significant and unusual hardship compared with ordinary life at a secured facility such as MSOP. The court added that, even if Green had identified a protected liberty interest, he had not alleged that he received less process than was due. In particular, he did not allege that he used MSOP’s grievance procedure to challenge his placement.

The court also held that Green had not alleged a substantive due process violation. Such a claim required allegations that the defendants’ conduct shocked the conscience and violated a fundamental liberty interest. The court concluded that Green had not alleged conduct meeting that standard.

Policy Challenge, Amendment, and Disposition

The court denied Green’s request to change the recommended dismissal of his challenge to MSOP’s unclothed-search policy from with prejudice to without prejudice. Green did not identify additions or corrections that would cure the alleged deficiencies. The court also denied his request to file a second amended complaint because he had already amended once and had not identified additional facts that would make his claims plausible. The court concluded that another amendment appeared futile, while recognizing Green’s status as a self-represented litigant.

The order sustained the Carlton County defendants’ objection, granted Green’s Motion to Accept Late Submission, overruled Green’s objection, adopted the report and recommendation in part and modified it in part, granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. Judge Ann D. Montgomery ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.