Brenizer v. County of Sherburne, The

Background

Plaintiffs—pretrial detainees and convicted inmates housed at the Sherburne County Jail—brought a putative class action against Sherburne County, Sheriff Joel Brott, and various Sherburne County correctional officers. They alleged that defendants severely limited their ability to exercise during the COVID-19 pandemic and exposed them to black mold and other contaminants in their cells.

Count 1 alleged cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Count 2 alleged denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Count 3 sought to hold Sherburne County responsible under Monell v. Department of Social Services for unconstitutional policies, practices, or customs. Count 4 alleged that the county failed to adequately train correctional officers under City of Canton v. Harris.

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation and Objections

The magistrate judge recommended dismissing Counts 1, 2, and 4 without prejudice. The recommendation also called for dismissing Count 3 without prejudice to the extent it was based on an alleged county custom, pattern, or practice of restricting out-of-cell exercise. The magistrate judge further recommended dismissing the individual defendants without prejudice because plaintiffs had not specifically identified alleged misconduct by each defendant, and dismissing the request for punitive damages with prejudice.

Plaintiffs objected to the recommended dismissal of the portion of Count 3 concerning out-of-cell exercise and to dismissal of the failure-to-train claim in Count 4.

Court’s Analysis

The court agreed with the magistrate judge that plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged a widespread and persistent pattern of restricting out-of-cell exercise by Sherburne County. The court stated that the complaint did little more than make general allegations about customs, patterns, or practices. The court therefore overruled the objection concerning Count 3.

The court also agreed that the failure-to-train claim was not adequately alleged. Plaintiffs had not alleged that Sherburne County knew or had reason to know that its training about the minimum amount of inmate exercise was inadequate. The court further stated that, absent previous similar restrictions, plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded that the exercise restrictions resulted from the county’s deliberate indifference. The court noted that it did not minimize the hardships imposed on inmates during the pandemic and that the restrictions were alleged to have been imposed to help prevent or reduce infection in prisons.

Disposition

The court adopted the amended report and recommendation in its entirety and overruled plaintiffs’ objections. It ruled that the amended motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically:

- Counts 1, 2, and 4 were dismissed without prejudice. - Count 3 was dismissed without prejudice to the extent plaintiffs alleged that constitutional violations resulted from a Sherburne County custom regarding out-of-cell exercise. - The individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice. - Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages against Sherburne County was dismissed with prejudice.

The opinion stated that Count 3, insofar as it related to defendants’ out-of-cell exercise policies, was the only remaining claim.