Hazley v. State of MN

Background

Glenn Kevin Hazley was incarcerated at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Moose Lake when the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed his sentence and sent his criminal case back to the state district court. The state district court later set bail at $8,000, with an $800 cash alternative. Hazley sought to use money in his inmate account to pay the cash bail.

On May 10, 2016, Hazley sent a written request to the prison’s Inmate Accounts division asking how to pay the bail. Kristi Cisar, an accounting officer, told him to submit a voucher payable to the county with an addressed envelope, and said she would process and mail the check. Hazley submitted the requested materials. Cisar testified that she processed the request and mailed an $800 check to Hennepin County Courts on May 13. Her note to Hazley stated, “Done today.”

The parties disputed whether the check was actually mailed. Hennepin County had no record of receiving it, Hazley’s defense counsel could not locate it, and the defendants could not produce a copy of the check. After learning that the county apparently had not received the check, Hazley’s attorney and sister asked the prison to stop payment. Prison policy required Hazley personally to make that request. Hazley did so on June 21, and Cisar processed his request on June 28. Hazley was tried and convicted after a bench trial that began on July 20, 2016.

Hazley brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, alleging that Cisar, Becky Dooley, and another prison official violated his Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in being able to post bail. His claims against the other official, Tom Roy, had already been dismissed. Hazley also asserted a Minnesota false-imprisonment claim. Cisar and Dooley moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule for them because the evidence could not support a reasonable jury verdict against them.

Legal standards and analysis

The court held that Hazley had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in exercising his bail option after bail had been set. Because prison officials had time to consider and act on his request, Hazley had to show deliberate indifference. This required more than negligence but less than an intent to harm, and required evidence that the officials recklessly disregarded a known risk.

As to Cisar, the court recognized a genuine factual dispute about whether she mailed the $800 check. But the court said that question was not enough to defeat summary judgment. The issue was whether Cisar deliberately disregarded Hazley’s rights, not merely whether the check arrived. Cisar’s testimony that she timely processed and mailed the check, together with her contemporaneous “Done today” note, provided evidence of good faith. Hazley identified no evidence from which a reasonable juror could find that Cisar deliberately disregarded a known risk. The court also found no evidence that Cisar’s instructions about submitting a voucher and envelope were materially incorrect.

As to Dooley, the court explained that a supervisor cannot be held liable under section 1983 solely for a subordinate’s actions or based only on supervisory responsibility. The parties agreed that the record did not show Dooley’s personal involvement in handling the bail-check request. Hazley also argued that Dooley’s policy requiring an inmate personally to request a stop-payment order prolonged his incarceration. The court found no evidence that the policy itself posed a general problem or that Dooley knew about Hazley’s particular circumstances.

The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide a related state-law claim alongside the federal claims, over the false-imprisonment claim. It found that deciding the claim would avoid duplicating work already completed and that the issue did not appear novel or unsettled under Minnesota law. The court held that the claim failed because false imprisonment is an intentional tort requiring an act intended to confine. Hazley offered no evidence that Cisar intended to harm him or keep him incarcerated. Because the evidence did not support deliberate indifference or reckless disregard, it also did not support the required intent to confine. Hazley did not oppose summary judgment on the false-imprisonment claim as to Dooley.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants Becky Dooley and Kristi Cisar’s motion for summary judgment. It granted judgment on Hazley’s federal civil-rights claims and his state false-imprisonment claim, and ordered: “This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.” The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.

Judge Eric C. Tostrud signed the opinion and order on July 23, 2020.