Milner v. Olmsted County Adult Center

Background

Edward Milner sued the Olmstead County Adult Center and sought monetary compensation for alleged constitutional-rights violations. He alleged that, when he arrived at the detention center, an officer was allowed to try to access his cellphone. He also alleged that officers subjected him to “mental torture” throughout his detention. Milner proceeded without a lawyer.

A magistrate judge reviewed Milner’s complaint and addendum under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s screening provisions. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint without prejudice because it failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The recommendation also stated that Milner had not named a defendant properly subject to suit under the legal theories he identified.

Objection and analysis

Milner objected to the recommendation. The district court explained that specific objections receive fresh review, while objections that merely repeat earlier arguments are reviewed for clear error. Because Milner represented himself, the court read his filings liberally, but it was not required to assume facts that he had not alleged.

The court agreed with the magistrate judge that Milner’s allegation concerning an attempted cellphone inspection did not contain sufficient facts to state a Fourth Amendment claim. Milner’s response—that his claims could be proven with empirical evidence—did not specifically identify an error in the recommendation. The court also declined to consider Milner’s identification of two named deputies and two unnamed deputies because he raised those defendants for the first time in his objection. The court stated that, even if it considered that additional information, Milner’s conclusory allegations would still be insufficient to state a claim.

Disposition

Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Milner’s objection and adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The court dismissed Milner’s complaint without prejudice because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court denied Milner’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs as moot. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.