Beaulieu v. Jesson

Background

Wallace James Beaulieu challenged policies and procedures at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program concerning Behavioral Expectations Reports. He alleged that the policies did not provide sufficient procedural protections and sought monetary relief and changes to the policies. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law.

The magistrate judge recommended dismissing roughly half of the named defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the screening provision that permits dismissal of an action by a person proceeding without prepaying filing fees when the complaint fails to state a claim. Beaulieu objected only to the recommended dismissal of Lucinda Jesson and Dennis Benson.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the recommendation independently. It concluded that Beaulieu had not alleged enough facts showing Jesson’s personal involvement in the challenged events or policies. The complaint alleged only that Jesson was the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services and was responsible for overseeing the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. The court held that general supervisory responsibilities were not enough to establish personal responsibility under § 1983.

The court reached a different conclusion regarding Benson. Beaulieu alleged that Benson was responsible for overall decision-making and policy decisions concerning the Minnesota Sex Offender Program and the conditions challenged in the complaint. The court also noted that the specific policy at issue appeared ultimately to have been issued under Benson’s authority. It therefore allowed the § 1983 claims against Benson to go forward at that time, while noting that Benson could later seek dismissal under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rulings and case status

The court overruled the objection in part and sustained it in part. It adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in part and rejected it in part: it rejected the recommendation to dismiss Benson and adopted the recommendation in all other respects.

The court dismissed the following defendants without prejudice: Lucinda Jesson, Elizabeth Barbo, Tracy Gebhart, Scott Benoit, Sara Kulas, Mark Wilmes, Ann Zimmerman, Ralph Schmidt, Jamie Jungers, Thane Murphy, Diana Maagard, Robert Rose, Brian Ninneman, Thomas Lundquist, Tara Osborne, Kent Johannsen, Teresa Kneis, and Jane Stinar.

The court granted Beaulieu’s motion to amend and directed the Clerk of Court to re-docket the proposed amended complaint as the operative pleading. The court stated that the amended complaint was substantively identical to the original complaint except that it clarified the defendants were sued in both their personal and official capacities. The court also stated that the amended complaint failed to state a claim against the defendants dismissed under the order.

The court ordered Beaulieu to submit completed Marshal Service Forms for Dennis Benson and the other defendants identified in the order. If he did not return the forms within 30 days, the court stated that dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute would be recommended. After receiving the forms, the Clerk was directed to seek waivers of service for defendants sued in their personal capacities, and the U.S. Marshals Service was directed to serve the defendants in their official capacities as agents of the State of Minnesota. The order also stated that a defendant who failed without good cause to return a service waiver could be required to pay later service expenses.