Parson v. Barney

Background

Raymond A. Parson, Jr. filed a Third Amended Complaint concerning medical treatment he says he received while confined at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. He alleged that he had a severe heat rash, swelling, bleeding, and an eye infection; repeatedly requested treatment; and was refused medication and other medical care by Sharyn L. Barney. He also alleged that Barney mocked him, threatened disciplinary action, and used a racial slur. Parson claimed that his condition worsened and caused temporary blindness, pain, emotional trauma, physical marks and scars, headaches, lost wages, and medical expenses.

The Third Amended Complaint asserted five counts. Count 1 alleged cruel and unusual punishment under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. Count 2 alleged constitutional medical-care violations and negligence. Count 3 alleged denial of medical care and race- and disability-based discrimination. Count 4 alleged that Nancy Johnston and Thomas Lundquist failed to train or supervise Barney. Count 5 alleged that the Minnesota Department of Human Services had policies, practices, or customs that caused violations of Parson’s federal rights.

Screening analysis

Because Parson had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court reviewed the Third Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous or fail to state a claim for relief.

The court concluded that Parson could not maintain direct claims under the United States Constitution, independent claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, or claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000dd because that statute applies to people in federal custody or control. It also concluded that there is no private right of action for violations of the Minnesota Constitution. The court recommended dismissing those claims with prejudice.

The court further concluded that the Minnesota Department of Human Services, as a state agency, was protected by sovereign immunity. It recommended dismissing the claims against that agency without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also recommended dismissing damages claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities without prejudice because those claims were treated as claims against the State.

Count-specific rulings

For Count 1, the court found that Parson did not allege enough specific facts connecting Johnston or Lundquist to the alleged denial of medical care. It recommended dismissing Count 1 against those defendants without prejudice. The court found that Parson’s detailed allegations concerning Barney’s repeated refusal to provide medical care were sufficient to survive the initial screening stage. It therefore recommended allowing Count 1 to proceed against Barney in her individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an alleged Eighth Amendment violation. The court emphasized that this was not a final determination that the claim would ultimately succeed or that the pleading was adequate against any later motion.

The court recommended dismissing with prejudice the portion of Count 2 that repeated the Eighth Amendment claim because it duplicated Count 1. It recommended dismissing the medical-negligence portion of Count 2 without prejudice because Parson did not identify the applicable medical standard of care or provide the expert-review affidavit required by Minnesota law.

The court recommended dismissing Count 3 in its entirety. Its Eighth Amendment medical-care claim duplicated Count 1. Its Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims did not allege that Barney denied treatment because of a disability. The court did not decide whether Parson had a qualifying disability.

The court recommended dismissing Count 4 in its entirety. Parson did not allege that Johnston or Lundquist knew of a pattern of unconstitutional conduct, failed to take specified remedial action, or acted under a particular policy or custom. His request for injunctive relief was also too vague to identify what action the court or defendants would be required to take.

Count 5 named only the Minnesota Department of Human Services, so the court recommended dismissing it in its entirety without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Disposition and procedural status

The court recommended that Count 1 be allowed to proceed only to the extent it asserted an individual-capacity claim against Barney under § 1983 arising from the Eighth Amendment. It recommended dismissing with prejudice claims based directly on the United States or Minnesota Constitutions, § 1988, § 2000dd, or claims duplicating Count 1. It recommended dismissing the remainder of the Third Amended Complaint without prejudice.

Separately, the court ordered Parson to submit a completed United States Marshals service form for Barney. After receiving the form, the clerk was directed to seek Barney’s waiver of service in her individual capacity. The document was a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final district court order or judgment, and it stated that objections could be filed within 14 days after service.