Hari v. Stuart

Background

Michael B. Hari was detained at the Anoka County Jail from April 25, 2019, through August 21, 2019. Jail policy required pat-down searches in specified circumstances, including when detainees entered the secure booking area, left or returned to housing units, encountered people outside their housing units, or were believed to possess contraband. The policy allowed female staff to pat down male inmates if the search was documented.

Deputy JoAnn Maro conducted two pat-down searches of Hari, on May 5 and May 10. Each lasted about one minute. Before the first search, Hari told Maro that it was indecent for an unrelated female to touch him under his religious beliefs, and he requested that a male officer perform the searches. Hari filed grievances after both searches. He alleged that the searches were unlawful and that jail staff retaliated by keeping him in maximum custody.

The jail initially classified Hari as a maximum-custody inmate based on the severity of his pending criminal charges, his prior conviction for child abduction, and his attempted escape from a U.S. Marshals Service transport van. The record also described later cell violations, administrative segregation, daily cell searches, restraints during movement, a hunger strike, and his transfer to the Sherburne County Jail. The opinion states that Hari did not contest these facts.

Claims and procedural history

Hari brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants in their official and personal capacities, as well as a claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act against them in their personal capacities. He sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.

Count One alleged that the pat-down searches violated the First Amendment’s protection for religious exercise, the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process protections, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Count Two alleged unequal treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment based on differences involving gender and religion. Count Three alleged that Hari was transferred to the Sherburne County Jail in retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights.

A magistrate judge recommended granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying Hari’s motion to strike a footnote and other language in the defendants’ summary-judgment memorandum. Hari objected to the recommendation concerning Counts One and Two. The district court reviewed those objections independently and reviewed the unobjected portions for clear error.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Hari’s argument that the defendants had failed to address his religion-based equal-protection claim. Although the defendants did not substantively address that claim in their principal memorandum, they addressed it in their reply, and Hari was allowed to file a surreply. The court concluded that Hari had a sufficient opportunity to respond and had not identified a genuine dispute over a material fact.

The court also held that Hari had not produced evidence showing that nonreligious inmates or inmates of other religions who objected to pat-down searches were treated differently. Because Hari did not provide evidence supporting the required unequal treatment, the court held that summary judgment was appropriate on that claim.

Regarding the pat-down searches, the court held that the two searches were minor impositions that did not reach constitutional significance. The court emphasized that each search lasted about sixty seconds, that Hari did not allege the searches were abusive or forceful, and that the record showed he was generally searched by deputies of the same gender. The court also considered jail evidence that requiring same-gender searches for male inmates could disrupt staffing, resources, and security.

The court accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation regarding the remaining claims, including Hari’s claim for injunctive relief against the defendants in their official capacities and his remaining claims in Counts One through Three. The opinion states that neither side objected to those recommendations and that the court found no clear error.

Disposition

Judge Eric C. Tostrud overruled Hari’s objections and accepted the Report and Recommendation in full. The court denied Hari’s motion to strike, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.