Graham v. Koenig

Background

Alonzo J. Graham filed the case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His amended complaint names Dr. James Koenig, Kathy Reid, RN Supervisor, and the Warden of Oak Park Heights in their individual and official capacities. Graham’s claims arise from dental work he received on February 2, 2017, while incarcerated at Minnesota Correctional Facility Oak Park Heights. He alleged that the defendants knew he needed adequate dental care and pain or antibiotic medication but were deliberately indifferent to those needs, violating the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Graham sought a declaration that the defendants violated his rights, an order requiring reconstructive dental surgery and continued pain-management aftercare, and compensatory damages for deterioration of his dental health and related pain and suffering. The Warden moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim.

Warden’s Motion to Dismiss

The court recommended granting the Warden’s motion. It concluded that Graham’s official-capacity claim for monetary damages was effectively a claim against the State of Minnesota. Because the State had not waived its sovereign immunity, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over that claim under the Eleventh Amendment and recommended dismissing it.

The court separately concluded that Graham had not alleged facts showing the Warden’s personal involvement in an unconstitutional act, deliberate indifference, or tacit authorization of unconstitutional conduct. A supervisor’s responsibility for overseeing a prison, without more, was not enough to establish liability under § 1983. The court therefore recommended dismissing Graham’s individual-capacity claim against the Warden as well.

The recommendation states that the Warden’s motion to dismiss should be granted and that Graham’s claims against the Warden should be dismissed with prejudice. The claims against Koenig and Reid remained pending because they had answered the amended complaint.

Temporary Restraining Order

Graham sought a temporary restraining order concerning the handling of prisoners’ legal mail at Minnesota Correctional Facility Rush City, where he was then housed. He asked the court to stop a practice of holding legal mail for 24 to 72 hours before inmates could pick it up.

The court recommended denying the motion because the mail practices at Rush City were unrelated to Graham’s dental-injury claims from Oak Park Heights. The court also stated that Graham had filed several motions and responsive pleadings before and after seeking the restraining order, so the record did not show an imminent risk of irreparable harm to his ability to litigate this case.

Expert Witness

The court denied without prejudice Graham’s motion for appointment of an expert witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. The court concluded that Graham had not shown compelling circumstances for appointing an expert. It noted that civil litigants generally must pay their own expert costs, that Graham appeared to seek an expert mainly for damages issues that would arise later, and that he had not shown the deliberate-indifference claim was so complex that expert testimony was necessary at that time.

The court stated that Graham could renew the request as the case proceeded.

Appointment of Counsel

The court denied without prejudice Graham’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel. Although Graham said he had contacted attorneys, had limited access to legal research, and took medication affecting his mental functions, the court concluded that he had not shown that he could not investigate the facts or present his claims. The court also found that his many filings showed he could represent his interests and that the case was not sufficiently factually or legally complex to require appointed counsel.

Free Copies

The court denied Graham’s Request for Free Copies in full. It separately denied in part and granted in part his Motion for Free Copies. The court denied his request for a clean copy of the amended complaint and his request for wholesale printing and mailing of every filing from docket number 42 through the most recent filing. It granted his request for a printed copy of the case docket and directed the Clerk of Court to send it to him. The court stated that Graham could seek particular pleadings through another motion identifying the pleading and why it was necessary.

Disposition and Procedural Status

Judge Douglas L. Micko recommended that the Warden’s motion to dismiss be granted, that Graham’s claims against the Warden be dismissed with prejudice, and that Graham’s temporary-restraining-order motion be denied. The order separately denied without prejudice the expert-witness and appointment-of-counsel motions, denied the Request for Free Copies, and denied in part and granted in part the Motion for Free Copies. Because the Warden-related rulings and the restraining-order ruling were recommendations, the notice stated that they were not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit and that the parties could file specific written objections within the stated deadline.