Jacobson v. Roy

Background

Justin Jacobson, described in the order as a civil detainee of Minnesota, sued Paul Schnell, Tony Lourey, Nancy Johnston, Keith Ellison, Kelly Lyn Mitchell, and unidentified defendants in their official capacities. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing Jacobson’s claim concerning required treatment without prejudice and dismissing his other claims with prejudice. The magistrate judge also recommended denying Jacobson’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. Jacobson objected and asked for permission to amend his amended complaint.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Jacobson’s argument that California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act applied. It explained that Jacobson sought relief only from agents of Minnesota sued in their official capacities, so a California statute could not provide relief in this action.

The court also explained that the magistrate judge had not found that Jacobson was trying to invalidate his criminal conviction. Instead, the recommendation stated that Jacobson had not challenged the conviction and therefore had not shown that the criminal proceedings themselves violated federal due-process rights. The court overruled this and Jacobson’s remaining objections for the reasons given in the recommendation.

The court denied leave to amend. It stated that amendment would be futile because Jacobson had not explained how the requirement that he complete sex-offender treatment violated his constitutional rights. The court found that Jacobson had failed to plead his claims with enough factual detail and legal support despite having had multiple opportunities to do so.

Disposition

After reviewing the portions of the recommendation to which Jacobson objected, the court accepted the recommended disposition in part. It ordered that Jacobson’s amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice, denied Jacobson’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee, and denied his request for leave to amend as futile. Judge Joan N. Ericksen signed the order.