Asher v. Ninneman

Background

Jeremy David Asher, who is civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program and lives at its facility, sued eight Minnesota Sex Offender Program employees. The lawsuit concerned Asher’s brief placement in a high-security area and an unclothed visual body search after Asher refused to comply with directions from staff. Asher asserted claims against the defendants in both their official and individual capacities, alleging violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Report and Recommendation

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the official-capacity claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), which addresses whether the court has authority to hear a claim. The magistrate judge also recommended dismissing the remaining claims for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint adequately alleges a legally valid claim. No objections were filed, so the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.

Ruling

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright adopted the Report and Recommendation as modified. The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. It dismissed all claims brought against the defendants in their official capacities without prejudice. It dismissed all other claims with prejudice. The modification reflected the court’s conclusion that claims dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction must be dismissed without prejudice, while the remaining claims were dismissed with prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered.