Perseke v. Roy
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-00443
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Perseke v. Roy, Judge Tostrud dismissed most claims with prejudice, dismissed the treatment claim without prejudice, and denied his fee-waiver application as moot.
Michael Dewayne Perseke’s claims against the named Minnesota officials and Jane Does were affected. His treatment-condition claim was dismissed without prejudice, while all other claims were dismissed with prejudice; his application to proceed without prepaying fees was denied as moot.
What happened
In Perseke v. Roy, Michael Dewayne Perseke, who is civilly committed at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, challenged Minnesota laws governing conditional release and registration. He filed the case without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying filing fees.
Perseke argued that the laws violated a California civil-rights statute and the Constitution. His claims concerned the lack of a separate charge for conditional release, alleged stigma from the registration and release requirements, and required treatment during conditional release. He also asked to amend his complaint instead of having the case dismissed.
The court overruled his objections, accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and dismissed the treatment claim without prejudice while dismissing all other claims with prejudice. It denied his fee-waiver application as moot and denied his request to amend. Judge Tostrud entered the order.
The detailed version
- Perseke v. Roy · No. 0:19-cv-00443
- Eric Tostrud
- Sept. 26, 2019
Background
Michael Dewayne Perseke is civilly committed at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program after a court determined that he is a sexually dangerous person. He filed this action without a lawyer, challenging Minnesota’s conditional-release and registration statutes as they applied to him. He also applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying court fees.
The matter came before the court on Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer’s report and recommendation. Although the magistrate judge concluded that Perseke financially qualified to proceed without prepaying fees, she recommended dismissing the claims because they failed to state a legally valid basis for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Perseke objected.
Claims and Analysis
The court reviewed the report and recommendation independently because Perseke objected. It agreed with the magistrate judge’s analysis.
The court identified four groups of claims:
- Perseke argued that Minnesota’s conditional-release and registration statutes violated California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. The court concluded that the California statute did not apply to a person civilly committed in Minnesota and seeking relief from Minnesota governmental officials under Minnesota law.
- Perseke argued that conditional release could not constitutionally be imposed as part of his sentence because he had not been separately charged under the conditional-release statute. The court concluded that no separate charge was required before the Minnesota court could impose the statutorily required conditional-release term as part of his sentence.
- Perseke argued that the conditional-release and registration statutes stigmatized him in violation of the Constitution. Relying on the Eighth Circuit’s discussion of stigma-based harms, the court concluded that the alleged harms did not amount to a constitutional violation.
- Perseke argued that requiring treatment during conditional release violated his constitutional rights. The court concluded that he had not explained how the treatment requirement violated a constitutional right.
Perseke also asked to amend his complaint. The court denied that request because he did not identify additional facts or legal theories he would add, and because several dismissal grounds could not be cured through amendment.
Disposition
The court overruled Perseke’s objections and accepted the report and recommendation in full. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), it dismissed the claim alleging that the treatment condition violated his constitutional rights without prejudice. It dismissed with prejudice all other claims. The court denied Perseke’s application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot and directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.