Sorenson v. State of Minnesota

Background

The plaintiff alleged that gallbladder surgery in 2001 caused bowel incontinence, requiring more frequent and unpredictable restroom access. Since approximately 2010, she had been detained under an order of civil commitment at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program facility in Moose Lake, Minnesota. She participated in voluntary group therapy, which the opinion says was part of the treatment program and could help participants advance toward possible release.

The therapists leading the plaintiff’s group generally did not allow participants who left a session to return until the next scheduled session. They made an exception for participants who provided documentation showing a reason to leave and return. In 2020, the plaintiff requested an accommodation allowing her to leave group therapy to use the restroom and return to the same session. A registered nurse practitioner denied the request, and the Minnesota Department of Human Services’ Americans with Disabilities Act coordinator denied her appeal because the submitted documentation was insufficient and did not show a substantially limiting condition under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The remaining claims were disability-discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, along with claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging inadequate medical care and impermissible punishment. During discovery, the court ordered the plaintiff to provide additional information and later precluded her from using information she had withheld. The defendants then moved for summary judgment. The plaintiff did not respond to that motion and later moved to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice.

Voluntary dismissal

The court reviewed the plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster’s Report and Recommendation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), a court may allow or deny voluntary dismissal after considering factors such as the reason for dismissal, the stage of the case, prejudice to the defendants, and the resources already spent.

The court agreed with Judge Foster that these factors supported denying dismissal. The case had progressed to the point where a decision on the merits was ready, the parties and the court had spent considerable resources, and a later lawsuit could deprive the defendants of the benefit of the discovery sanctions or require renewed discovery disputes. The court also found the plaintiff’s stated reasons unpersuasive because the record showed that she wanted to avoid a decision on summary judgment, preserve the possibility of refiling the same claims, and negotiate from a stronger position. The court therefore denied the plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice.

Summary judgment

Summary judgment is a ruling without a trial when the record shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

For the § 1983 punishment claim, the court agreed that restricting participants from leaving and returning during group therapy was rationally related to MSOP’s legitimate treatment and rehabilitation interests. The plaintiff presented no evidence creating a genuine factual dispute that the restriction was punishment. For the inadequate-medical-care claim, the court agreed that the claim was essentially based on the same alleged violations as the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims and concluded under Eighth Circuit law that the overlapping § 1983 claim should be dismissed.

For the disability-discrimination claims, the court agreed that the plaintiff had not produced evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that her alleged bowel incontinence was a disability under the applicable laws. The record contained virtually no evidence of a history of substantially limiting bowel incontinence. The only medical record mentioning diarrhea symptoms was a March 2002 emergency-room note describing 12 hours of symptoms, and later records did not show continuing complaints. The plaintiff’s medical visits at MSOP over many years also did not document complaints about bowel incontinence. The court concluded that her declaration did not supply additional documented instances showing that the condition substantially limited a major life activity when MSOP denied the accommodation.

Disposition

Judge Menendez accepted the Report and Recommendation and overruled the plaintiff’s objections. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered.