Otto v. Schmitt
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:21-cv-01610
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Otto v. Schmitt, Judge Wright recommended dismissing claims against Mary Karl and the Minnesota Department of Corrections during prisoner-complaint screening.
The recommendation affects DuWayne Wm. Otto’s claims against Mary Karl and the Minnesota Department of Corrections. It does not state a disposition of the claims against Barbara Schmitt.
What happened
In Otto v. Schmitt, DuWayne Wm. Otto’s amended complaint asserted civil-rights claims, but the report says it did not describe any actions by Mary Karl. The court separately addressed claims against Barbara Schmitt.
The report also says the Minnesota Department of Corrections is protected by the state’s constitutional immunity from suit, and that Minnesota had not waived that immunity for these claims. Because Otto was a prisoner, the court screened his complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute.
Judge Wright recommended dismissing all claims against Mary Karl without prejudice for failure to identify her individual actions, and dismissing all claims against the Minnesota Department of Corrections because of its immunity. The report and recommendation was not a final district-court order or directly appealable judgment.
The detailed version
- Otto v. Schmitt · No. 0:21-cv-01610
- Paul Magnuson
- Oct. 5, 2021
Background
DuWayne Wm. Otto filed an amended complaint asserting civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He initially sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, but he paid the filing fee after the court requested additional financial information. The court stated that it would address the claims against Barbara Schmitt by separate order.
Because Otto was a prisoner suing governmental defendants, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court accepted pleaded facts as true and considered whether they stated a legally actionable claim. A § 1983 claim requires facts showing that each defendant personally participated in violating a federal constitutional right while acting under state authority.
Claims Against Mary Karl
The court noted that Otto’s original complaint did not identify any harmful action by Mary Karl and that the amended complaint did not mention Karl. Because Otto did not describe Karl’s personal involvement, the court concluded that he had not stated a valid § 1983 claim against her.
The court recommended that all claims against Karl be dismissed without prejudice for failure to identify individualized actions. The stated disposition allows the claims to be brought again, subject to applicable requirements.
Claims Against the Minnesota Department of Corrections
The court concluded that the Minnesota Department of Corrections is an agency of the State of Minnesota and shares the state’s sovereign immunity. The report states that neither Minnesota nor the department had waived that immunity for the claims presented. It therefore recommended dismissal of all claims against the department because of Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Recommendation and Procedural Posture
The report and recommendation recommended that all claims against Mary Karl be dismissed without prejudice and that all claims against the Minnesota Department of Corrections be dismissed because of immunity. It did not state a disposition of the claims against Barbara Schmitt. The document expressly states that it is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Parties could file written objections within the period stated in the notice.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it concerns statutory screening of a prisoner complaint and disposes of claims for failure to state a claim and sovereign immunity without deciding the underlying constitutional claims on their merits.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.