Logering v. Morrison County Sheriff's Department

Background

Michael David Logering and Wendy Ann Acker, representing themselves, sued the Morrison County Sheriff’s Department and numerous named and unidentified law-enforcement defendants. The complaint concerned an alleged August 24, 2020 incident at or near the Logering residence, including alleged entry without a warrant, use of force, injuries while handcuffed, jail conditions, and failure to enforce a harassment restraining order. The plaintiffs also alleged problems in state-court prosecutions, disability discrimination, failure to intervene or report misconduct, and a later restriction on videotaping a court hearing.

The complaint asserted claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the United States Constitution, and Minnesota law. The court noted that the complaint appeared to sue the individual defendants only in their official capacities. The plaintiffs also filed applications to proceed without prepaying fees and costs and a motion seeking a default judgment. Before the court ruled on the fee applications, the plaintiffs paid the $402 filing fee. The court ordered that payment refunded and treated the fee applications as still pending.

Screening standard

Because the plaintiffs sought to proceed without prepaying fees, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). That law requires dismissal at any time if an action is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The court explained that a frivolous claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. It also applied the ordinary pleading standard, under which factual allegations are accepted as true and must plausibly support a right to relief. The court construed the self-represented plaintiffs’ filings liberally but required them to allege enough facts to support their claims.

Claims against David Kalis and Rick Matteson

The complaint contained no specific allegations about David Kalis or Rick Matteson. The court therefore found the claims against them frivolous and dismissed those claims without prejudice.

Claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242

The court held that Sections 241 and 242 are federal criminal statutes and do not create a private right of action for civil lawsuits. It therefore found the claims under those statutes legally frivolous and dismissed them with prejudice because the defect could not be fixed through amendment.

Americans with Disabilities Act claims

The court understood the complaint’s references to “12132” and “12133” as claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Title II generally prohibits a public entity from excluding a qualified person with a disability from public services, denying that person the benefits of those services, or discriminating against the person because of a disability.

The court assumed, without deciding, that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged discrimination. It nevertheless concluded that the complaint did not allege the other required elements. The complaint contained no disability allegation concerning Wendy Ann Acker. As to Michael David Logering, the complaint alleged that he did not have a particular disability, rather than alleging that he had a disability and was discriminated against because of it. The court dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

Section 1983 and constitutional claims

The court treated the remaining federal constitutional claims as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a method for seeking relief for constitutional violations by people acting under state law. Because the complaint identified the individual defendants as being sued in their official capacities, the court treated the claims as official-capacity claims. Such claims are effectively claims against the governmental entities that employ the officials.

The court dismissed with prejudice the official-capacity claims for damages against employees of the State of Minnesota because sovereign immunity barred those claims and the court considered them frivolous. The remaining official-capacity claims—claims against local and county employees, and claims for injunctive relief against State employees—also failed. The complaint did not allege that the claimed injuries resulted from an official governmental policy or practice, which is required for these types of claims against governmental entities. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice the official-capacity claims for injunctive relief against State employees and the official-capacity claims against employees of Morrison County and the City of Pierz. This disposed of all of the plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims.

Minnesota-law claims

After dismissing all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims based on Minnesota statutes, policies, county ordinances, regulations, or customs. Supplemental jurisdiction is a court’s authority to hear related state-law claims in a case that includes federal claims. The court concluded that the relevant considerations favored declining that authority because the federal claims were being dismissed before trial. It dismissed the Minnesota-law claims without prejudice.

Other motions and final order

The court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. It ordered the Clerk of Court to refund the plaintiffs’ $402 filing fee. It denied the plaintiffs’ applications to proceed without prepaying fees and costs and their motion seeking default judgment as moot, meaning the court found no need to decide those motions after dismissing the case.