Perseke v. Moser
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:19-cv-01296
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Perseke v. Moser, Judge Magnuson denied Perseke’s motion to stay because his procedural-due-process claims differed from Karsjens.
The ruling directly affected Michael Perseke’s request to pause his case and left his remaining procedural-due-process claim subject to further proceedings.
What happened
Michael Perseke, who is civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, sued MSOP employees and state officials. He alleged that items MSOP had allowed him to buy were later seized as contraband without advance notice or an opportunity to be heard. The court had already dismissed his related substantive-due-process claim, leaving his procedural-due-process claim.
Perseke asked the court to pause his case while another judge handled issues remanded in Karsjens v. Lourey. He argued that the cases involved similar claims about property seizures at MSOP. The court explained that Karsjens involved substantive due process, which focuses on whether conduct was an unconstitutional punishment, while Perseke’s remaining claim focused on whether he received constitutionally adequate procedures before losing his property.
Judge Magnuson concluded that the cases were categorically different and that resolving Karsjens would not affect Perseke’s case. The court therefore denied the motion to stay.
The detailed version
- Perseke v. Moser · No. 0:19-cv-01296
- Paul Magnuson
- Apr. 14, 2021
Background
Michael Perseke is civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). He sued Kevin Moser, Peter Puffer, Sue Johnson, Jordan Goodman, Amanda Fury, Leann Bergman, Nathan Johnson, Tammy Dockal, and Kristi Wagner, alleging violations of his procedural due-process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and his right to be free from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment.
The claims arose from MSOP’s seizure of items from Perseke’s room. According to the opinion, MSOP had allowed Perseke to purchase the items but later treated them as contraband. Perseke alleged that the items were seized without notice and an opportunity to be heard beforehand and that the seizures were carried out as punishment. The court had previously dismissed the substantive-due-process part of his claims. The remaining claim concerned whether depriving him of property without advance notice and an opportunity to be heard violated procedural due process.
Motion to Stay
Perseke moved to stay, or pause, the case until another judge resolved issues remanded by the Eighth Circuit in a related MSOP detainee case. He argued that some of those issues were the same as the issues in his case.
The court rejected that comparison. The property-deprivation claim in the related case arose under substantive due process and concerned whether the seizure and destruction of property were unconstitutional punishment. The Eighth Circuit’s remand addressed the standard for evaluating that substantive-due-process claim. It did not address procedural-due-process claims.
The court explained that procedural due process asks two questions: whether the person had a protected liberty or property interest, and whether the state provided constitutionally sufficient procedures. Unlike substantive due process, this analysis does not require the court to examine the state actor’s purpose or objective. The focus is on the property interest and the procedures provided before the deprivation.
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Magnuson determined that Perseke’s remaining claims were categorically different from the remaining claims in the related case. The court concluded that resolving the related case would not create confusion among the judges in the District of Minnesota and that a stay was not warranted.
The court denied Perseke’s Motion to Stay (Docket No. 49).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.