Bailey v. Minnesota Dept. of Corrections, The
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:21-cv-01927
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Bailey v. Minnesota Dept. of Corrections, Judge Magnuson adopted a recommendation, dismissed specified claims, granted one motion, denied another, and ordered more service forms.
Billy Bailey; the Minnesota Department of Corrections; The Centurion Medical Co. Corporation of Minnesota; the individual defendants named in the order, including Nanette Larson, Tina Sneen, Monica Arons, Lynn Noll, Schnell, Smith, Bosch, Wanchena, Reed, Erickson, and Williams; and the remaining parties to the claims not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Bailey v. Minnesota Dept. of Corrections, the court reviewed Bailey’s objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation that certain claims and defendants be dismissed. The court rejected Bailey’s arguments about defendants acting together, the prison grievance policy, and the need to plead each official’s personal involvement.
The court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the Minnesota Department of Corrections from Claims 1 and 2, all claims against defendants in their official roles, specified parts of Claims 2 and 3, and all of Claim 3A. It also dismissed Claim 2 against The Centurion Medical Co. Corporation of Minnesota as duplicative, granted Bailey’s motion to voluntarily dismiss Claim 4, denied his request for judicial notice, and ordered that he receive 10 additional U.S. Marshal service forms.
Judge Magnuson ruled that Bailey’s complaint did not adequately allege each individual defendant’s personal involvement as required for a federal civil-rights claim under Section 1983. The court also relied on immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and the pleading-screening statute, while noting that Bailey could not add a new claim through objections to the recommendation.
The detailed version
- Bailey v. Minnesota Dept. of Corrections, The · No. 0:21-cv-01927
- Paul Magnuson
- Dec. 21, 2021
Background
The court considered Billy Bailey’s objections to a report and recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez on November 10, 2021. The recommendation proposed dismissing certain claims and defendants from Bailey’s complaint. After reviewing the portions to which Bailey specifically objected, the court adopted the recommendation.
Court’s reasoning
Bailey argued that allegations that the defendants acted together established each individual defendant’s personal involvement. The court rejected that argument. It explained that a claim under Section 1983, the federal civil-rights statute at issue, requires a plaintiff to allege how each individual government defendant personally participated in the constitutional violation. The court also stated that Section 1983 does not impose liability merely because a person supervises another person.
Bailey also argued that the prison grievance policy was defective because it did not provide emergency relief during the pandemic. The court stated that this claim was not included in the complaint and that Bailey could not amend his pleading by raising it in objections to the report and recommendation.
The court rejected Bailey’s reliance on decisions from federal courts in New York, explaining that the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal required allegations of each government official’s personal involvement. The court concluded that the complaint did not adequately plead that involvement for many defendants. Bailey conceded that the Eleventh Amendment barred his claims against the Minnesota Department of Corrections and against individual defendants in their official capacities.
Disposition
The court ordered the following:
- The report and recommendation was adopted. - The Minnesota Department of Corrections was dismissed from Claims 1 and 2 because of immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. - All claims against all defendants in their official capacities were dismissed because the defendants were employees of the Minnesota Department of Corrections and were protected by the same immunity. - Claim 2 against Schnell and Smith was dismissed for failure to state a claim under the prisoner-complaint screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. - Claim 2 against The Centurion Medical Co. Corporation of Minnesota was dismissed as duplicative of Claim 1. - Claim 3 was dismissed as to Bosch, Wanchena, Reed, Erickson, and Williams for failure to state a claim under Section 1915A. - Claim 3A was dismissed as to all defendants because Bailey did not allege an actual injury. - Bailey’s motion to voluntarily dismiss Claim 4 was granted. - Bailey’s motion for the court to take judicial notice was denied. - The Clerk of Court was directed to send Bailey 10 additional U.S. Marshal service forms.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.