Henny v. O'Connor

Background

Kimberly Ann Henny, identified in the opinion as a prisoner detained at the Federal Correctional Institution in Waseca, Minnesota, sued Patrick T. O’Connor, J. Stanek, Mistelle Starr, Michael Carvajal, and Andre M. Matevousian. She alleged that the federal government violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) through its treatment of federal prisoners working for UNICOR, and that UNICOR violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Minnesota law.

The matter came before Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty on Henny’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs and her motion for reconsideration. The court had previously required her to pay an initial partial filing fee of at least $109.83. Henny argued that an adjustment to her restitution obligations under the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program left her unable to make that payment.

Fee ruling

The court found that Henny had no assets or means to pay the initial partial filing fee and granted her motion for reconsideration. The initial partial payment was waived. The court stated, however, that Henny remained responsible for the entire $350 statutory filing fee, which would be collected in installments, and ordered notice to the officials at the institution where she was confined.

The recommendation separately stated that Henny’s application to proceed without prepaying fees should be denied.

Prisoner screening and claims

The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires screening of a prisoner’s civil complaint against a governmental entity or officer. Under that statute, a court may dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from an immune defendant.

The court concluded that Henny’s FLSA claim could not proceed because a prisoner’s relationship with a prison entity arises from inmate status rather than an employment relationship. It therefore recommended dismissal of the federal wage claim under § 1915A(b).

The court also recommended dismissal of Henny’s ADA claims. It stated that her allegations were largely conclusory, including that she did not explain how she was disabled for purposes of the ADA. The court further stated that the United States and its wholly owned corporations, including UNICOR, are excluded from the relevant ADA definition of “employer”; that Henny was not an “employee” for purposes of the ADA; and that she had not plausibly alleged that UNICOR treated her differently from similarly situated inmates because of a disability.

Henny also sought relief under Minnesota minimum-wage laws and for unjust enrichment. The court stated that she had not pleaded a basis for original federal jurisdiction over those claims. It also recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction because the federal claims were being dismissed before trial. In addition, the court stated that the federal government had not waived sovereign immunity for those state-law claims.

The opinion noted that Henny cited “85 U.S.C. § 1761(c)(4),” but stated that this provision did not appear to exist and that it was unclear which alternative provision she intended to cite.

Disposition and procedural status

The order portion granted Henny’s motion for reconsideration and required her to pay the unpaid balance of the $350 statutory filing fee in installments.

The recommendation portion recommended that the federal-law claims be dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), that the state-law claims be dismissed without prejudice for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and that Henny’s application to proceed without prepaying fees be denied.

Because the document was a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, it was not a final order or judgment and was not directly appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The notice stated that a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after service.