Favors v. Mike

Background

Joseph Anthony Favors, proceeding without a lawyer, was civilly committed and residing at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program’s Community Preparation Services facility in St. Peter, Minnesota. He sued numerous MSOP officials, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, and the Minnesota Attorney General. He alleged retaliation and harassment after he reported what he believed was the sexual exploitation of another MSOP patient by two other patients.

Favors alleged that officials responded by placing him on an Individual Program Plan involving additional treatment related to his attraction to the other patient, requiring him to prepare a written Safety Plan, refusing to increase his treatment scores, and denying his request to transfer to another unit. He asserted claims under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and several Minnesota statutes. He sought money damages, including compensatory and punitive damages, his claimed “cost for care,” and attorney’s fees, against the defendants in their official and individual capacities.

Favors also sought a temporary restraining order to prevent MSOP officials from placing him in the same living unit as specified patients. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended denying that request, finding that Favors had not shown an imminent threat to his health or safety or the irreparable harm required for a preliminary injunction. Favors objected and submitted additional materials, including allegations that two of the patients had later been moved into his unit.

Operative pleading

The court determined that Favors’s Third Amended Complaint remained the operative pleading. A magistrate judge had struck the Second and Third Amended Complaints after finding that Favors had filed multiple amended complaints without the required permission or opposing-party consent. The district court reversed that order in part, insofar as it struck the Third Amended Complaint, because the district court had previously granted Favors leave to amend and recognized that complaint as operative.

Motion to dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) addresses whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, while Rule 12(b)(6) addresses whether a complaint plausibly states a legal claim. The defendants argued that Favors had not plausibly alleged constitutional violations and that his claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and qualified immunity.

The court granted the motion to dismiss. It held that Favors’s claims for money damages against the defendants in their official capacities were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. That doctrine generally prevents money-damage suits in federal court against a state and its officials acting in their official capacities, and the court found no indication that Minnesota had waived that immunity here.

The court also held that qualified immunity barred Favors’s claims against the defendants in their individual capacities. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from personal liability unless their conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established at the time. The court assumed, without deciding, that the alleged retaliatory conduct violated Favors’s constitutional rights, but concluded that Favors had not identified, and the court had not found, sufficiently definite precedent putting reasonable officials on notice that the alleged conduct violated those rights.

Because the federal claims were dismissed, only state-law claims remained. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims. It therefore dismissed the Third Amended Complaint in its entirety.

Temporary restraining order

The court overruled Favors’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, and denied the motion for a temporary restraining order. The court found that Favors’s objections largely repeated arguments already presented to the magistrate judge and that neither those arguments nor his additional allegations showed an imminent threat to his health or safety or the irreparable harm required for a preliminary injunction.

Motions to supplement and other motions

The court denied Favors’s two motions to supplement the pleadings. It found that the proposed additional retaliation allegations would not overcome the defendants’ Eleventh Amendment and qualified-immunity defenses, and that the additional facts concerning the requested injunction did not establish irreparable harm. The court also denied Favors’s motion to deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied his jury-trial motion as moot.

Disposition

The defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was GRANTED. Favors’s objection was OVERRULED, and the November 17, 2020 Report and Recommendation was ADOPTED. Favors’s motion for a temporary restraining order, motion to deny dismissal, and motions to supplement the pleadings were DENIED. His motion for a jury-trial demand was DENIED as moot. The November 17, 2020 order was REVERSED in part insofar as it struck the Third Amended Complaint. The court ordered judgment to be entered accordingly.