Dorosh v. Minnesota Department of Human Services Commissioner

Background

Daniel Dorosh, Pamela Dorosh-Walther, and Deanna Dorosh filed an amended complaint without lawyers. They asserted 32 counts against 41 defendants, including state entities, counties, long-term-care facilities, attorneys, guardians, and individuals. The claims concerned Daniel’s guardianship, placements in care facilities, alleged restrictions on family contact, and alleged mistreatment. The claims invoked constitutional provisions, federal and state statutes, federal regulations, and common-law torts.

The motion addressed in this opinion was filed by Aldrich Boarding Care Home, LLC, and Blake Elliot, the facility’s owner. Daniel had lived at Aldrich Boarding Care since March 2021. The amended complaint alleged, among other things, that the Aldrich Defendants helped isolate Daniel, restricted his communications and visitors, allowed mistreatment, used chemical restraints, and failed to respond adequately to family communications.

Reasons for dismissal

The Aldrich Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a complaint to contain a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court held that the 234-page, 1,113-paragraph amended complaint violated that rule. It alleged all 32 counts against all 41 defendants, often without identifying which plaintiff asserted which claim or what particular defendant did. The court found that the allegations against the Aldrich Defendants were sparse and scattered throughout the complaint, leaving them to guess which claims and facts applied to them.

The court also applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a rule limiting federal district courts from reviewing or overturning state-court judgments. It held that many claims sought to invalidate or obtain relief from the state guardianship judgment and therefore fell outside the federal court’s jurisdiction. The court distinguished claims based on allegedly independent conduct by the Aldrich Defendants, including negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, Minnesota Health Care Bill of Rights claims, and a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The court then held that the plaintiffs waived their claims against the Aldrich Defendants by failing to file a response brief opposing the motion. It also addressed the claims’ substance. The § 1983 claim failed because the complaint did not plausibly allege that the private Aldrich Defendants were state actors, and a state-appointed guardian was not itself a state actor for this purpose. The Minnesota Health Care Bill of Rights claims failed because the statute did not provide a private cause of action.

The negligence claim failed because the allegations were too vague and conclusory and did not adequately identify the conduct, breach of duty, or applicable standard of care. The intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim also failed because the allegations did not plausibly show conduct so extreme and outrageous that it was intolerable to the community. The court did not reach the Aldrich Defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs lacked capacity to sue because the complaint was dismissed on other grounds.

Disposition

The court granted Aldrich Boarding Care Home, LLC, and Blake Elliot’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against those defendants without prejudice. The order addressed the Aldrich Defendants’ motion and did not resolve the claims against the remaining defendants.