Gozo v. Skillet Inc.

Background

Makusha Gozo filed an emergency request that the court construed as a complaint. The opinion states that federal authorities were detaining him at the Kandiyohi County Jail while potential removal to Zimbabwe was being considered. Gozo alleged that, although he told the defendants he strictly followed a kosher diet, he did not receive kosher meals. He also alleged that defendants failed to provide items such as sugar, causing malnutrition and physical harm. In a later filing, he alleged that he was denied Passover meals as well as his full kosher diet.

Gozo asserted claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. He requested an order requiring kosher meals and adequate nutrition, along with $6 million in damages.

Amendments and operative defendants

The court granted the Motion to Amend and Amendment to the extent they changed the defendant list. The operative defendants were Skillet Kitchen Inc.; Eric Tollefson; Kandiyohi County; Alejandro Mayorkas; the City of Willmar; the State of Minnesota; the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Tim Walz. The court denied the Second Motion to Amend as moot.

The court treated the claims against Tollefson, Mayorkas, and Walz as official-capacity claims because the filings did not specify whether Gozo intended to sue them in their individual capacities, official capacities, or both. The court therefore treated those claims as claims against Kandiyohi County, the United States, and the State of Minnesota, respectively.

Injunctive relief

Gozo later informed the court that he had a new address in Texas. The court stated that, as best it could tell, he was no longer in immigration detention. Because he was no longer at the Kandiyohi County Jail or apparently in immigration detention, the court concluded that his requests for injunctive relief concerning those conditions were moot. It recommended that those claims be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Federal defendants

The court concluded that sovereign immunity—the rule generally preventing lawsuits against the United States without its consent—barred the damages claims against Alejandro Mayorkas in his official capacity and the Department of Homeland Security. It stated that the complaint did not show a waiver of immunity for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or First Amendment claims. It also concluded that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act applies to state and local governments, not the federal government. The court therefore recommended dismissing without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction, the damages claims against Mayorkas and the Department of Homeland Security.

State defendants

The court concluded that state sovereign immunity barred the damages claims against the State of Minnesota and Walz in his official capacity. It stated that constitutional claims against the State could not proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not apply to states, and that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act does not clearly authorize damages claims against states. The court therefore recommended dismissing those claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Private contractor and local defendants

The court recommended dismissing the claims against Skillet Kitchen Inc. without prejudice. It concluded that Gozo had not alleged facts connecting the company to governmental actors, so the complaint did not state a § 1983 claim. It also concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act did not provide the asserted claims against a nongovernmental entity on the allegations presented.

As to Tollefson, Kandiyohi County, and the City of Willmar, the court recommended dismissing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim because that statute does not apply to local governments. It also recommended dismissing the § 1983 and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act claims. For the § 1983 claims, the court stated that Gozo had not alleged a local-government policy or custom that caused his injury.

Remaining motions and disposition

Because the court recommended dismissing the action in its entirety, it recommended denying as moot Gozo’s motion concerning exhaustion under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), his emergency injunction motion, and both motions to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The order portion granted the Motion to Amend and Amendment and denied the Second Motion to Amend as moot. The recommendation portion proposed: dismissal without prejudice as moot of the injunctive-relief claims; dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction of the damages claims against Mayorkas, the Department of Homeland Security, the State of Minnesota, and Walz; dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a cause of action against Skillet Kitchen Inc., Tollefson, Kandiyohi County, and the City of Willmar; and denial as moot of the exhaustion, injunction, and two fee-waiver motions. The notice states that this Report and Recommendation was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit and that objections could be filed within 14 days after service.