Larson v. Bogenholm

Background

Hollis J. Larson, who was civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program in Moose Lake, Minnesota, sued 19 defendants. They included Minnesota state-court judges, Minnesota Sex Offender Program employees, the City of Moose Lake and two Moose Lake law-enforcement officers, Carlton County, and three Carlton County attorneys. Larson’s claims arose from his 2017 arrest and prosecution for allegedly assaulting a Minnesota Sex Offender Program employee.

A jury acquitted Larson of the assault charge in March 2018. Larson filed this lawsuit approximately five months later. His complaint asserted federal civil-rights claims and state-law tort claims concerning unlawful arrest and prosecution.

Report and Recommendation

The magistrate judge recommended granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings. A motion to dismiss asks whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim, while a motion for judgment on the pleadings asks the court to decide the case based on the pleadings.

The recommendation concluded that the Moose Lake law-enforcement officers were protected by qualified immunity, a legal protection that can shield government officials from certain damages claims when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful. It also concluded that Larson had not adequately stated claims for retaliation, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, or failure to properly screen, hire, and train.

As to the Carlton County defendants, the recommendation concluded that the county prosecutors had absolute prosecutorial immunity for their conduct connected to initiating and presenting the criminal case. It also concluded that Larson had not adequately stated several claims against Carlton County.

For the state defendants sued in their official capacities, the recommendation found sovereign immunity except for claims seeking prospective injunctive relief, meaning an order directing future conduct. It concluded that Larson had not adequately stated those remaining claims. For state defendants sued individually, the recommendation found qualified immunity for the Minnesota Sex Offender Program investigator, judicial immunity for the state-court judges, and witness immunity for the security counselors and one supervisor because the claims against them were based solely on their testimony. It also concluded that Larson had not adequately stated a conspiracy claim against another supervisor.

Because the recommendation would dismiss all of Larson’s federal claims, it recommended that the court decline supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims, over Larson’s state-law claims.

District Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which Larson objected without deference to the magistrate judge’s conclusions. The court liberally read Larson’s complaint and objections because he was representing himself.

The court rejected Larson’s argument that immunity questions must always be decided by a jury. It explained that disputed facts underlying immunity can require a jury, but when the relevant facts are undisputed, whether immunity applies is a legal question for the court.

The court held that Larson’s allegations did not plausibly show that the law-enforcement officers lacked probable cause to arrest him. His professed innocence did not by itself eliminate probable cause. The allegations about the video recordings showed, at most, that the recordings were ambiguous. Even accepting Larson’s allegation that Minnesota Sex Offender Program employees gave false information, the complaint did not allege facts showing that the officers knew the information was false or that relying on it was objectively unreasonable.

The court also rejected Larson’s challenge to prosecutorial immunity. It concluded that his argument—that the prosecutors fabricated evidence or unreasonably relied on evidence—did not defeat immunity for conduct connected to the judicial phase of the criminal process.

The court rejected Larson’s retaliation argument because his arrest occurred before he filed the civil-rights complaint that he claimed prompted the retaliation. The court also concluded that Larson had not adequately stated a Section 1983 conspiracy claim. A Section 1983 conspiracy claim requires an underlying violation of a constitutional right or privilege, and the court concluded that Larson’s underlying constitutional claims were being dismissed. Finally, the court held that Larson had not plausibly alleged a lack of probable cause or another constitutional or federal statutory violation supporting his malicious-prosecution claim.

For the portions of the recommendation to which Larson did not specifically object, the court reviewed the record for clear error and found none.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright overruled Larson’s objections, adopted the July 30, 2019 Report and Recommendation, granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed Larson’s complaint without prejudice. The order did not state that the dismissal was with prejudice. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Larson’s state-law claims.