Hageman v. Morrison County Sheriff's Office

Background

Adam Hageman filed a complaint asserting 15 claims against 17 defendants. The court previously screened the complaint and dismissed several claims and defendants. The remaining defendants later moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule before trial when there is no genuine dispute about a fact important to the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion on Hageman’s remaining claims except for two First Amendment retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. One claim concerned a July 26, 2019 lockdown imposed by Ethan Wise after Hageman allegedly refused to retrieve a spoon from his lunch tray. Hageman said Wise had not ordered him to retrieve the spoon and later admitted that the lockdown was retaliation for a lawsuit Hageman had filed in 2018. The lockdown was later dismissed after Scott MacKissock found it unclear whether Wise had given a direct order.

The other claim concerned an August 21, 2019 incident involving Tim Brummer and Scott MacKissock. Hageman alleged that Brummer and MacKissock tried to take papers from his cell, including an envelope containing part of a complaint intended for the Minneapolis federal courthouse. He alleged that the envelope tore nearly in half while he pulled it away from Brummer.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the defendants’ specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court explained that a First Amendment retaliation claim requires evidence that the plaintiff engaged in protected activity, the defendant took an action that would deter an ordinarily firm person from continuing that activity, and the protected activity motivated the action at least in part.

Claim against Wise

The court rejected the defendants’ arguments about the lockdown. It held that a jury could find that the strict conditions of lockdown—confinement to a small cell with only one hour outside per day and no physical interaction with other people—would deter an ordinary person from speaking. The fact that Hageman later reconciled with Wise and continued protected activity did not resolve that issue.

The court also held that a jury could find a retaliatory motive based on Hageman’s allegation that Wise admitted the lockdown was retaliation for the 2018 lawsuit. Although the defendants pointed to the timing of the lawsuit and the fact that Wise was not a defendant in it, the court concluded those facts did not resolve the motivation issue as a matter of law.

The defendants argued that the dismissed rule-violation report still supplied “some evidence” that Hageman had violated a jail rule. The court rejected that argument because the violation had not been upheld by an impartial decisionmaker. The court therefore concluded that the defendants had not established, as a matter of law, that the lockdown was imposed for an actual rule violation rather than retaliation.

Claims against Brummer and MacKissock

The court rejected the argument that the alleged seizure and tearing of legal papers could not be an adverse action supporting retaliation. It distinguished a separate claim involving denial of access to the courts, explaining that retaliation and access-to-courts claims involve different inquiries. Because Hageman alleged more than a threat—he alleged that the defendants grabbed his legal materials and that some materials were ripped—the court held that whether the incident occurred was a factual question for a jury.

The court did not consider the defendants’ qualified-immunity argument on this claim because they had raised it for the first time in their objections rather than before the magistrate judge.

Disposition

Judge Tunheim overruled the defendants’ objections and adopted the February 1, 2022 Report and Recommendation. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The motion was denied as to the First Amendment retaliation claim against Wise arising from the spoon-incident lockdown and as to the retaliation claim against Brummer and MacKissock arising from the alleged attempt to seize Hageman’s legal papers. The motion was granted on all remaining claims.