Miles v. Johnson-Piper

Background

Gordon Miles, who is committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP), brought a civil-rights lawsuit against 34 MSOP employees in their individual and official capacities. His amended complaint asserted claims involving alleged deliberate indifference to his safety, failure to protect him from being housed with another MSOP client, First Amendment retaliation, denial of meaningful access to the courts, loss of property, and procedural and substantive due process. He also moved for a preliminary injunction and for consolidation of this case with another matter.

A magistrate judge recommended granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss and denying Miles’s two motions. Both sides objected.

Court’s analysis

The district court reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation from the beginning and reviewed the unchallenged portions for clear error.

First Amendment and qualified immunity. The defendants objected to the recommendation that Kent Johansen was not yet entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from personal liability for damages unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The court held that, even assuming Miles could show a constitutional violation, existing law did not clearly establish a right to discuss his grievances about double-bunking during MSOP group therapy or to avoid dismissal from therapy after disruptive contributions. The court therefore held that Johansen was entitled to qualified immunity. Because of that conclusion, it did not decide whether the First Amendment retaliation claim independently failed to state a claim.

Failure to protect and deliberate indifference. The court held that Miles did not adequately allege that MSOP’s double-bunking policy created a substantial risk of serious harm or that officials knew of and disregarded such a risk. The court noted that double-bunking is not by itself unconstitutional and that Miles’s allegations suggested the policy was implemented reasonably, including with his input about selecting a bunkmate.

Procedural due process. The court rejected Miles’s challenge to his placement in restrictive housing. His complaint did not plausibly allege that MSOP’s procedures for challenging the housing decision were inadequate; instead, it described grievances, responses, and explanations from MSOP officials. The court also rejected his objection concerning lost, stolen, or destroyed property because the objection merely repeated the complaint’s allegations and the court found no clear error in the magistrate judge’s analysis.

Substantive due process. The court held that Miles did not state a claim based on his placement in restrictive housing. He did not identify conduct that was conscience-shocking or a violation of a deeply rooted fundamental right. The court also said that Miles had not explained why his allegation that the placement was retaliatory changed that analysis.

Motions for preliminary injunction and consolidation. Because the case was being dismissed, the court denied both motions as moot.

Disposition

The court overruled Miles’s objections and sustained the defendants’ objections. It adopted the report and recommendation in part as modified and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in all respects.

The court dismissed without prejudice the state-law claims, Miles’s deliberate-indifference claim arising from transportation in cold weather, and all claims for monetary relief against defendants in their official capacities. It dismissed with prejudice all other claims. The court denied Miles’s motion for a preliminary injunction and his motion for consolidation, and directed that judgment be entered.