McHorse v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:21-cv-02103
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In McHorse v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Judge Magnuson dismissed the action without prejudice and denied McHorse’s fee-waiver application as moot.
Bradly Allen McHorse, a person civilly committed at Minnesota Security Hospital; the Minnesota Department of Human Services and Minnesota Security Hospital were the defendants.
What happened
In McHorse v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Bradly Allen McHorse, who is civilly committed at Minnesota Security Hospital, sought release, community care, and $10,000 in damages. He argued that his continued commitment and lack of community care violated federal law and the Constitution.
The court said a lawsuit—not a petition seeking release—could not provide the immediate release McHorse requested. It also said he could not seek damages based on his commitment because he had not shown that the commitment had been invalidated through an appeal, state-court ruling, or a federal release order.
Judge Magnuson dismissed the action without prejudice and denied McHorse’s application to proceed without paying fees as moot. The court did not decide whether McHorse could succeed in a separate petition seeking review of his commitment.
The detailed version
- McHorse v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · No. 0:21-cv-02103
- Paul Magnuson
- Oct. 20, 2021
Background
Bradly Allen McHorse is civilly committed at the Minnesota Security Hospital. He alleged that documents and testimony from 2013 showed he was not “mentally ill and dangerous.” Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, he argued that he should have been released from custody and offered care in the community. He characterized the failure to offer community care as discrimination and also challenged the constitutionality of his commitment. He sought $10,000 in damages and an injunction ordering his release.
McHorse applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court found that he financially qualified for that status, but it was required to dismiss an action proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 if the complaint failed to state a legally sufficient claim.
Court’s analysis
The court treated the filing as a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than as a petition seeking review of detention. The court relied on McHorse’s description of the filing as a complaint, his designation of himself as a plaintiff, and his request for release “without a habeas corpus.”
The court held that the claim for immediate release could not proceed under § 1983. Under Preiser v. Rodriguez, a person challenging the fact or duration of confinement and seeking immediate or speedier release must use a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court stated that this rule applies to civil detainees as well as prisoners. Because McHorse specifically disavowed that type of petition, the court dismissed the portion of the action seeking immediate release without prejudice. The court did not express an opinion about McHorse’s prospects if he later filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The court also dismissed the damages claim without prejudice. Under Heck v. Humphrey, a § 1983 plaintiff generally cannot obtain damages for harm caused by an allegedly unlawful conviction or confinement unless the underlying decision has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or overturned through federal detention review. The complaint did not suggest that McHorse’s commitment had been successfully challenged, so the court found his damages claims not legally available in this action.
Disposition
The court dismissed the entire matter without prejudice. It denied McHorse’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot because the action was being dismissed. The order did not decide the underlying validity of McHorse’s civil commitment or the merits of his discrimination and constitutional allegations.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.