Semler v. Johnston

Background

Raymond L. Semler, a civil detainee committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, sued Nancy Johnston, James Berg, and Marshall Smith in their individual and official capacities. The defendants were identified as officials associated with the Minnesota Sex Offender Program or the Minnesota Department of Human Services.

Semler alleged that terminating the program’s cable-television contract violated the First Amendment through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also alleged violations of the Cable Communications Policy Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605(a), and, as the court construed his complaint, asserted a breach-of-contract claim and referred to other Minnesota laws.

The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion. Semler objected, arguing in part that dismissal was premature because discovery had not occurred and that he had a constitutional right to watch television.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a motion to dismiss tests whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a plausible claim. Discovery is not required when the allegations, even if accepted as true, cannot support legal relief.

The court rejected Semler’s interpretation of an earlier case involving television programming. That case recognized that the content of television programming can be protected speech and addressed alleged content-based censorship. It did not establish a constitutional right for civil detainees to watch television. Because Semler alleged a general right to watch television rather than content-based censorship, the court concluded that his § 1983 claims were not based on a cognizable constitutional right.

The court also concluded that Semler had not plausibly alleged a violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act. His complaint acknowledged that the defendants had contracted for cable services and were authorized under that contract to provide those services. He did not plausibly allege unauthorized receipt of cable services or show that terminating the cable contract was actionable under the cited provisions.

The court agreed that any ambiguity in Semler’s complaint about damages in the defendants’ official capacities did not permit such an award because the Eleventh Amendment bars monetary damages against state officials sued in their official capacities. The final order, however, dismissed all of Semler’s § 1983 claims against the defendants in both their official and individual capacities without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court construed the complaint as asserting a Minnesota breach-of-contract claim and referring to other Minnesota laws, but declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state-law claims.

Leave to amend and disposition

Semler moved for permission to amend his complaint. The court denied that motion because he did not provide a proposed amended complaint, did not clearly identify the intended changes, and could not explain amendments that would avoid the fundamental problems identified by the court. The court stated that no constitutional or statutory right to watch television existed on the allegations presented and noted that free antenna television was available to the MSOP client population.

The court overruled Semler’s objections, adopted the report and recommendation, and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss as follows: Semler’s § 1983 claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; his Cable Communications Policy Act claims were dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim; and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. The court denied Semler’s motion for leave to amend.