Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Substantive rulingFiled July 25, 2022

Aery v. Collins

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:20-cv-02154
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
5
Civil RightsSummary JudgmentCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Aery v. Collins, Judge Menendez granted Collins’s summary-judgment motion, dismissed federal claims with prejudice, and state tort claims without prejudice.

Who this affects

James Paul Aery’s federal claims against Sergeant Holly Collins were dismissed with prejudice, while his state-law tort claims were dismissed without prejudice. Collins’s motion for summary judgment was granted, Aery’s motion was denied, and his remaining motions were denied as moot.

What happened

In Aery v. Collins, James Paul Aery sued Sergeant Holly Collins under a federal civil-rights law after she coughed into her elbow without a mask near him and another inmate. Aery said the coughing threatened his safety.

Aery and Collins both asked for judgment in their favor. Collins argued that Aery had not completed the prison grievance process and had not shown a physical injury, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Aery objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation in Collins’s favor and raised arguments about the grievance process and physical-injury requirement.

Judge Menendez overruled Aery’s objections, adopted the recommendation, granted Collins’s summary-judgment motion, and denied Aery’s motion. The court dismissed Aery’s federal claims with prejudice, dismissed his state-law tort claims without prejudice, and denied his remaining motions as moot.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Aery v. Collins · No. 0:20-cv-02154
Judge
Katherine Menendez
Date
July 25, 2022

Background

James Paul Aery brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sergeant Holly Collins. The claim arose from an April 18, 2020 incident in which Collins coughed into her elbow near Aery and another inmate while not wearing a mask. The opinion states that Collins had passed the COVID-19 screening procedure before the incident.

Aery filed six offender forms and a Minnesota Department of Corrections grievance form in response. He alleged that Collins disregarded his personal safety by intentionally coughing on him, causing fear of harm while she held a position of authority. Aery also asserted state-law tort claims.

Motions and Recommendation

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which asks the court to enter judgment without a trial when the applicable legal standard is met. Aery argued that he was entitled to judgment because there were no disputed facts and because Collins had been ordered to apologize and did so.

Collins argued that Aery’s federal claims were barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act because he had not exhausted, or completed, the available administrative grievance process. She also argued that Aery had not shown a physical injury. Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson recommended denying Aery’s motion and granting Collins’s motion on those grounds. She also recommended that the court decline to decide the state tort claims after dismissing the federal claims and deny Aery’s other pending motions as moot.

Objections and Analysis

Aery objected to the recommendation. He argued that Department of Corrections staff had failed to follow the grievance process, that the process was unavailable to him because he was not properly informed about it, and that no physical injury was required in this situation.

The district court stated that Aery had not raised those arguments before the magistrate judge and therefore waived them. The court also reviewed the arguments and found that none undermined the recommendation. Finding no remaining objection or clear error, the court adopted Judge Thorson’s recommendation.

Disposition

The court overruled Aery’s objections and adopted the March 17, 2022 recommendation. It granted Collins’s motion for summary judgment and denied Aery’s motion. It dismissed Aery’s federal claims with prejudice, meaning the order barred refiling those claims, and dismissed his state-law tort claims without prejudice, meaning the order did not impose that same bar. The court denied Aery’s remaining motions as moot and directed that judgment be entered.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.