Bishop v. Swanson

Background

The court ruled in four related cases: Bishop v. Swanson, No. 12-cv-135; Goodwin v. Swanson, No. 12-cv-180; McRae v. Swanson, No. 12-cv-221; and Mosby v. Swanson, No. 12-cv-320. The complaints raised numerous claims concerning policies and conditions affecting the plaintiffs. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz reviewed the complaints and recommended dismissing many claims and defendants while allowing certain portions of the claims to proceed.

The plaintiffs in the first three cases did not object to the recommendations. William Mosby objected to portions involving cruel-and-unusual-punishment claims and due-process claims. He agreed that claims repeating issues addressed in the earlier Karsjens litigation should be dismissed, but asked that claims involving policies not addressed there continue. The court also considered Mosby’s requests for referral to the Federal Bar Association’s Pro Se Project and for permission for plaintiffs in different facilities to communicate by videoconference.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the unobjected-to portions of the recommendations for clear error and reviewed the objected-to portions independently. It found no error in the magistrate judge’s recommendations.

For the punishment claims, the court accepted dismissal of claims concerning policies and conditions already addressed in the earlier Karsjens litigation. It also accepted the recommendation that any punishment claims not resolved by that litigation could survive screening and proceed through further litigation.

For the due-process claims, the court accepted dismissal of procedural-due-process claims concerning policies and conditions already addressed in the earlier litigation. It also accepted dismissal of substantive-due-process claims because the complaints did not adequately state such claims. The court treated Mosby’s objections as agreement with this recommendation because they did not identify a disagreement with it.

Disposition

Judge Menendez accepted all four reports and recommendations. The court dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, official-capacity claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages from employees of the State of Minnesota. It dismissed, for failure to state a claim, individual-capacity § 1983 damages claims against those employees. It also dismissed claims brought under the Minnesota Constitution.

The court dismissed the remainder of the following causes of action: failure to provide treatment; most unreasonable-searches-and-seizures claims; most invasion-of-privacy claims; denial of access to legal materials and counsel; denial of liberty; denial of a less restrictive alternative; specified punishment and due-process claims; double jeopardy; conspiracy to deny due process; intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; the Contracts Clause claim; negligent hiring and credentialing; supervisor liability; violation of police powers; violation of oath of office; support for preventative detention; rights to health care and affordable housing; conspiracy to place the plaintiffs “outside of the law”; and outrageous government conduct.

The court allowed to remain the search-and-seizure claims concerning actual property losses and attorney-call monitoring, and the privacy claims concerning attorney-call monitoring. It also allowed any punishment or procedural-due-process claims involving policies and conditions not already addressed in the earlier Karsjens litigation to survive screening. The court dismissed three defendants: “Olmsted County Social Services John Doe” in Bishop; “Clearwater County Social Services Sandy Nelson” in Goodwin; and “Hennepin County Social Services James O’Keefe” in both McRae and Mosby. The court declined Mosby’s requests for a legal-project referral and videoconferencing relief at that time.