Semler v. Johnston

Background

Raymond L. Semler is civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). Acting without a lawyer, he filed an amended complaint challenging MSOP vocational-programming policies and decisions. The defendants moved to dismiss.

Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended granting the motion to dismiss. Semler filed objections, a motion asking the court to accept his allegedly late objections, and a motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Brisbois.

Timeliness of the Objections

The court determined that Semler’s objections were timely. The deadline was extended because he was served by mail, and the court applied the prison-mailbox rule. Under that rule, a filing by a confined person is treated as filed when delivered to prison officials for mailing. Semler deposited his objections in the mail on August 19, 2019, the applicable deadline. The court therefore denied his motion to accept the objections as late as moot. The court also stated that it would have allowed the late filing even if the prison-mailbox rule did not apply.

Objections to the Recommendation

The court reviewed de novo—the required independent review—the parts of the recommendation to which Semler objected. It concluded that Magistrate Judge Brisbois’s analysis and conclusions were correct.

First, the court held that the Bane Act, a California statute, did not apply to Semler’s claims involving a civilly committed person in Minnesota, Minnesota law, and Minnesota governmental officials.

Second, the court held that the State of Minnesota had not waived sovereign immunity from suit in federal court and that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not remove that immunity. The court distinguished sovereign immunity, which can protect the state or state officials sued in their official capacities, from qualified immunity, which Semler had addressed in his objections. The court agreed that the Eleventh Amendment barred Semler’s claims for monetary damages against state officials sued in their official capacities.

Third, the court held that Semler’s equal-protection claim failed because he had not alleged that he was treated less favorably than similarly situated people. The MSOP residents he compared himself with were participating in treatment, while Semler was not, so the court found that they were not similarly situated.

Fourth, the court held that Semler’s procedural-due-process claims were not viable because he had not identified a constitutionally protected right affected by the termination of his vocational placement or by the hearing or outcome concerning his Behavioral Expectation Report.

Motion to Recuse

Semler’s motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Brisbois was based on his view that the report and recommendation was incorrect. The court held that disagreement with a recommendation does not establish the partiality or bias required for recusal. The court also stated that, because all of Semler’s claims were being dismissed, the recusal motion was moot.

Disposition

The court ordered that:

- Semler’s objections to the report and recommendation were overruled. - The report and recommendation was accepted in full. - The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. - Semler’s federal-law claims for monetary damages against defendants in their official capacities were dismissed with prejudice. - In all other respects, Semler’s claims were dismissed without prejudice. - Semler’s motion concerning his late reply and his motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Brisbois were both denied as moot.

The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.