Evenstad v. Schnell

Background

Thomas Evenstad and Nathan Braun sued Paul Schnell, Michelle Smith, Nate Knutson, Karen Robinson, Vicki Janssen, Jesse Pugh, the Minnesota Department of Corrections, and the State of Minnesota. They proceeded without lawyers. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by considering certain nonviolent prisoners who were within six months of release for early release because of COVID-19, while not considering violent prisoners for the same release. They sought damages and injunctive relief, including an order preventing early release of nonviolent prisoners unless violent prisoners were also released.

The complaint also listed claims described as reckless or deliberate indifference and endangerment, failure to protect, and cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The court stated that the plaintiffs did not explain what defendants did to support those claims and focused their arguments on the early-release policy and equal protection.

The plaintiffs also requested appointed counsel, an emergency preliminary injunction, and permission to proceed without paying filing fees. A magistrate judge previously recommended denying the preliminary-injunction request without prejudice and striking with prejudice the plaintiffs’ attempt to bring claims on behalf of classes of people. The opinion also notes that Evenstad was released from prison on August 10, 2020.

Defendants’ motion

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which challenges the court’s subject-matter authority, and Rule 12(b)(6), which challenges whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Defendants argued that official-capacity damages claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, personal-capacity claims were barred by qualified immunity, requests for injunctive relief were moot or barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and the equal-protection claims were not ripe. They also argued that the plaintiffs had not pleaded enough facts to support their claims.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the state and its officials were entitled to sovereign immunity from monetary damages sought against them in their official capacities. The opinion states that the State of Minnesota had not waived that immunity in federal court. The court therefore dismissed the plaintiffs’ official-capacity damages claims.

The court then applied qualified immunity, which generally protects public officials from personal damages liability unless their conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. Assuming without deciding that the plaintiffs’ allegations about the early-release policy were true, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown they were similarly situated to the nonviolent prisoners allegedly receiving different treatment. Because violent and nonviolent offenders were not shown to be similarly situated for this purpose, the court found that the plaintiffs had not established a viable equal-protection claim and held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the personal-capacity damages claims.

Because the plaintiffs had not pleaded a viable constitutional claim, the court also granted the motion to dismiss the remaining claims for injunctive relief. The court stated that the additional Eighth Amendment and related claims would be dismissed because the plaintiffs did not identify the defendants’ actions supporting them.

Disposition

Judge John R. Tunheim ordered that defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Docket No. 30, was GRANTED without prejudice. The order also states that the plaintiffs’ motions at Docket Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 19, 36, 37, 38, 51, and 53 were DENIED as MOOT. This included Braun’s motions to compel discovery because discovery had not begun and the court was granting the motion to dismiss.