Hollie v. Essentia Health Moose Lake Clinic

Background

Shannon Hollie, who is involuntarily civilly committed to a Minnesota Sex Offender Program facility in Moose Lake, Minnesota, sued Essentia Health Moose Lake Clinic and Dr. Benjamin Marsh. Hollie alleged that Defendants provided inadequate medical treatment for erectile dysfunction after his prostatectomy and cancer treatment. He specifically alleged that Dr. Marsh refused to perform a penile implant because of Hollie’s history as a sex offender and falsified medical-record entries. Hollie asserted claims under federal and Minnesota law.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, which is a request to resolve claims without a trial because the evidence does not allow a reasonable jury to rule for the opposing party. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended granting the motions. Hollie objected, and he also filed a motion seeking to exclude declarations and exhibits that Defendants submitted in support of summary judgment.

Motion to Exclude Evidence

The court denied Hollie’s motion, captioned a “Motion in Limine.” The court determined that the declarations from defense counsel Tracy A. Schramm and Essentia Senior Director Kristine Olson satisfied the requirements for summary-judgment declarations. The court found that the attached deposition excerpts and medical records were sufficiently authenticated for purposes of the motions. The court also declined to strike the Schramm Declaration because one paragraph allegedly concerned an irrelevant matter. The court noted that it did not rely on the declaration submitted by defense counsel Bryon G. Ascheman, but denied Hollie’s request to exclude it.

Federal Claims

The court granted summary judgment on Hollie’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute that generally requires the challenged conduct to be fairly attributable to a state actor. Hollie claimed that Defendants violated his constitutional rights through inadequate medical care and discrimination. The court concluded that the record did not contain evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Dr. Marsh was a state actor. Dr. Marsh treated Hollie at a private facility, there was no evidence of a contract with Minnesota or the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, and there was no evidence that state officials controlled or influenced Dr. Marsh’s medical decisions.

The court also upheld summary judgment for Essentia on the § 1983 claims. It stated that Essentia could not be held liable based on Dr. Marsh’s conduct because there was no underlying § 1983 violation and because Essentia was not Dr. Marsh’s employer. The court further stated that a private employer cannot be held vicariously liable under § 1983.

The court granted summary judgment on the § 1981 claim. Section 1981 addresses racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts, but the court found that Hollie alleged discrimination based on his status as a sex offender, not race. The court also found no basis for holding Essentia vicariously liable under § 1981.

The court granted summary judgment on Hollie’s claims under Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court found that Hollie offered no evidence showing how his erectile dysfunction made him an “individual with a disability” under that law. The court also rejected Essentia’s vicarious-liability exposure under the ADA on grounds similar to those supporting the § 1983 ruling.

The court declined to consider Hollie’s newly raised assertions of racial discrimination because his complaint alleged discrimination as a “class of one” or based on his sex-offender status, rather than discrimination based on race. The court also overruled objections that misunderstood the magistrate judge’s reasoning, including objections concerning civil commitment, constitutional medical-care rights, and expert-evidence standards.

Minnesota Claims and Disposition

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims, over Hollie’s Minnesota claims after granting summary judgment on all federal claims. The court therefore dismissed those Minnesota claims without prejudice. The opinion identifies claims involving the Rehabilitation Act, the Minnesota Health Records Act, Minnesota Statute § 541.076, and references to the Minnesota Human Rights Act and Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.

The court accepted the Report and Recommendation, overruled Hollie’s objections, and granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. It dismissed Hollie’s § 1983 claims, § 1981 claim, Title II and Title III ADA claims, and Essentia’s vicarious-liability claim based on alleged federal-law violations with prejudice. It dismissed the Minnesota state-law claims without prejudice. Judge Katherine Menendez directed that judgment be entered accordingly.