Black Elk v. Roy
- Donovan Frank
- 0:18-cv-03255
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Black Elk v. Schnell, Judge Frank dismissed most claims with prejudice and one without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Austin Black Elk’s claims were dismissed: the sex-offender-treatment claim without prejudice, and all other claims with prejudice. His application to proceed without paying filing fees was denied as moot.
What happened
Black Elk v. Schnell concerned Austin Black Elk’s challenge to Minnesota conditional-release, registration, and sex-offender-treatment requirements. He argued that these requirements violated his constitutional rights and that a California civil-rights law applied to his case.
The court concluded that the California law did not apply, the release and registration requirements were part of his earlier sentence rather than new charges, and similar constitutional challenges had already been rejected. It also found that Black Elk had not adequately explained how mandatory sex-offender treatment violated his constitutional rights.
Judge Donovan W. Frank overruled Black Elk’s objections and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court dismissed the treatment-related claim without prejudice, dismissed all other claims with prejudice, and denied Black Elk’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot.
The detailed version
- Black Elk v. Roy · No. 0:18-cv-03255
- Donovan Frank
- Aug. 26, 2019
Background
Austin Black Elk objected to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s recommendation that his claims be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. The defendants had not been served, and therefore did not respond to the objections. The district court reviewed the record and objections independently.
Black Elk challenged Minnesota conditional-release and registration requirements, as well as a requirement that he complete sex-offender treatment as a condition of release. He also sought relief under what he called the “Bane Act,” which the court understood to mean the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 52.1.
Court’s analysis
The court agreed that the California statute did not apply to a case involving a Minnesota civil detainee suing agents of Minnesota based on Minnesota laws. It also agreed that the conditional-release and registration requirements were aspects of Black Elk’s earlier sentence, not new charges. Because Black Elk did not challenge his underlying conviction or sentence, the court found no legal basis for his claim that he had been denied due process by not receiving procedures associated with a new charge.
The court further held that Black Elk’s constitutional challenges based on stigmatization and the effects of the Minnesota registration law failed as a matter of law. It relied on an Eighth Circuit decision holding that reputational harm from mandatory registration was insufficient to trigger due-process protections and that the registration burdens were too minimal to require heightened due-process review.
As to sex-offender treatment, the court agreed that Black Elk had not adequately alleged how the treatment requirement violated his constitutional rights. The court noted, however, that such a condition could theoretically violate constitutional rights, so it adopted the recommendation that this claim be dismissed without prejudice to repleading. The court agreed that amendment of the other claims would be futile.
Disposition
The court overruled Black Elk’s objections and adopted the Report and Recommendation. It dismissed the claim that complying with sex-offender treatment as a release condition was unconstitutional without prejudice. It dismissed all other claims with prejudice. The court also denied Black Elk’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot and directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.