Jackson v. Ossell

Background

Howard G. Jackson brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing suits against people who violate constitutional rights while acting under state law. The remaining claim was against David Ossell and Melissa Gunderson in their individual capacities. Jackson alleged that they violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by entering his apartment without his consent or a warrant. He sought damages for emotional harm. The Ramsey County Human Services Department and the claims against Ossell and Gunderson in their official capacities had previously been dismissed.

Jackson alleged that, after he received full physical custody of his daughter, a probation officer contacted Ramsey County Human Services. Jackson said Gunderson, a Human Services social worker, asked to meet at his apartment, but he declined. He alleged that Gunderson and Ossell later went to the apartment while he was away and entered after the landlord allowed them inside, despite their acknowledging that they did not have a warrant. Jackson also alleged that they told the landlord he was a registered sex offender, leading the landlord to change the apartment locks and consider evicting him.

Motion for recusal

Jackson asked the court to remove Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson and Chief Judge John R. Tunheim from the case. He relied on allegations that Magistrate Judge Thorson had denied a request for sanctions based on allegedly spoiled evidence and that her judicial assistant would not let him speak directly with her. He also alleged that the Clerk’s Office would not give him copies of filings and that the court’s judicial assistant would not let him speak directly with the court.

The court denied recusal. It explained that judicial rulings generally are not enough to establish disqualifying bias. It also stated that the two compact discs Jackson identified as spoiled were in the court’s possession and had been reviewed and listened to. The court further explained that parties are not permitted to speak directly with a judge outside the courtroom. It found that the Clerk’s Office was separate from the court and that none of Jackson’s allegations showed that either judge was partial.

Motion to disqualify counsel

Jackson asked the court to remove the defendants’ attorneys. He made general allegations that David Ossell’s attorney had tampered with evidence, filed false reports, and covered up illegal activity. He also alleged a conflict of interest without identifying who was involved or explaining the conflict.

The court denied the motion for disqualification. It found that Jackson had not provided evidence supporting the extreme remedy of disqualifying an opposing party’s chosen attorney. The court specifically noted that submitting a proposed, unsigned order with a motion was normal practice and did not constitute evidence tampering.

Motion to transfer venue

Jackson alternatively asked to move the case to another venue, citing the alleged misconduct or conflicts involving Ossell’s attorney, the Magistrate Judge, and the court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a civil case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The party seeking transfer bears the burden of showing that these considerations strongly favor transfer.

The court denied the motion to transfer. It found that Jackson had not shown misconduct or conflicts of interest, had not shown that transfer would be more convenient or serve the interests of justice, and had not identified the court to which he wanted the case transferred. Without that information, the court said it could not balance the relevant factors.

Other requests and rulings

Jackson objected to the reassignment of a separate case, Civil No. 19-741, from Judge Michael J. Davis to Judge Tunheim. The court denied the objections, explaining that the other case remained separate and that the two cases would be decided separately. The court said reassignment was intended to conserve judicial resources and make administration of Jackson’s cases more efficient.

Jackson requested a hearing, but the court denied that request because it had enough information from the filings and briefs to rule without one. Jackson also asked the court to resolve his tort claim and make a payment related to alleged evidence spoliation. The court stated that it could not resolve the tort claim at that stage because doing so would require a motion from a party or a trial, and it addressed the spoliation allegation in its discussion of counsel disqualification.

The court granted Jackson’s motion to unseal his complaint. Because the complaint referred to a minor, the court ordered that all mentions of the minor’s name—whether complete or partial—be redacted.

Jackson also asked for permission to serve Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman because he believed she was the Melissa Gunderson involved in the events alleged in the complaint. The court denied that request, finding that Jackson cited no evidence supporting the identification and that Hortman was not a named defendant.

The court further stated that Jackson had failed to serve Melissa Gunderson within the allowed time. It said Jackson had not supplied the information needed for service and had not shown good cause for the continued failure. In the discussion, the court stated that it would dismiss Gunderson from the case without prejudice. The written list of orders at the end of the opinion separately lists the denials and the order unsealing the complaint but does not separately list that dismissal.

Disposition and scope

The court denied the motion for recusal, disqualification, and transfer of venue; denied the request to serve Melissa Hortman; denied the motion to reassign the separate case, the motion concerning the tort claim, and the request for a hearing; and granted the motion to unseal the complaint subject to redactions. The court did not decide whether Ossell or Gunderson violated Jackson’s Fourth Amendment rights.