Benson v. Jesson

Background

Brandon Keith Benson, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Lucinda Jesson and 30 other defendants in their individual and official capacities. The defendants were represented by the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office. United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a report and recommendation on January 30, 2024. Both sides objected. Judge Blackwell reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation and gave Benson’s objections a liberal reading because he was representing himself.

Rulings on the objections

The court rejected Benson’s argument that his claims were not barred because the earlier related litigation had not finally decided the merits. The court concluded that the claims arising from that earlier litigation had been fully litigated and resolved. It also rejected Benson’s argument that all 31 defendants were responsible because they knew about the alleged wrongdoing or acted together. The court said Benson had not alleged individual official actions by the defendants whose claims were dismissed.

The court rejected Benson’s equal-protection objection because he did not allege that similarly situated detainees outside the allegedly protected group received different treatment. It also rejected his objection concerning deficient medical care because he did not allege that any defendant knew of a serious medical need.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that information held by a third party could never be protected by a privacy interest. It concluded that Benson had alleged more than a bare statement of a Fourth Amendment violation concerning defendants Kevin Murphy and Ken Stewart allegedly misrepresenting their authority to obtain his personal information from a third party.

The court also rejected the defendants’ challenge to the Fourteenth Amendment claim concerning the macing incident. The court said that the allegation was not merely that mace was used, but that officials continued spraying Benson after he had been subdued. On the pleadings, the court found that this could constitute excessive punishment through excessive force.

The court agreed with the defendants that Benson’s claim concerning being held in restrictive housing for too long did not state a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due-process claim. Benson did not provide enough facts about the restrictions or the defendants’ actions to support an inference that the conduct was sufficiently abusive to violate substantive due process.

The court also rejected the defendants’ request for qualified immunity at this stage. Qualified immunity can protect government officials from damages claims unless they violated a constitutional right that was clearly established. The court concluded that defendants Murphy and Stewart were not presently entitled to qualified immunity for the alleged search and seizure of Benson’s information, and that defendants Thane Murphy, Ken Stewart, Troy Swartout, Kent Johanson, Nicki Marvel, Brandon Tatum, and Darien Menten were not clearly entitled to qualified immunity based on the allegations concerning excessive punishment or failure to stop it. The court noted that additional factual development could change that determination.

Finally, the court found no clear error in the recommendation’s conclusion that the surviving claims were not barred by the earlier related litigation.

Order and disposition

Judge Blackwell accepted the January 30, 2024 report and recommendation as modified. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.

Two claims survived, and only against the specified defendants:

1. The Fourteenth Amendment claim based on allegations in paragraphs 81–83 and 102–103 that Troy Swartout, Kent Johanson, Nicki Marvel, Brandon Tatum, and Darien Menten, in their individual and official capacities, deprived Benson of substantive due-process rights during the June 2014 macing incident. 2. The Fourth Amendment claim based on paragraph 75 that Thane Murphy and Ken Stewart, in their individual and official capacities, knowingly misrepresented their authority to a third party to obtain Benson’s personal information and data.

The court dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim Benson’s Fourteenth Amendment discrimination claim; his claim that Stewart and Murphy searched and seized materials from his cell in 2014; his claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs; and his claim that he was held in restrictive housing for an excessive duration.

The court dismissed with prejudice where precluded by the earlier related litigation all other claims in Benson’s Fourteenth Amendment cause of action; his Fourteenth Amendment punishment claim; his Fourteenth Amendment inhumane-treatment claim; his First and Fourteenth Amendment religion and religious-freedom claim; his First Amendment free-speech and free-association claim; and all other claims in his Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure cause of action.