Favors v. Hoover
| Decision Date | 29 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | Court File No. 13-cv-428 (JRT/LIB) |
| Parties | Joseph Anthony Favors, Plaintiff, v. Michelle Hoover, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a general assignment, made in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and upon Defendant Joann Fabian, Defendant John King, Defendant Jeffrey Peterson, and Defendant Deborah Schadegg's (collectively, the "DOC Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 239]; and Defendant Office of Health Facility Complaints' ("Defendant OHFC") Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 246].1
For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that the DOC Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 239], be GRANTED; and that Defendant OHFC's Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 246], be GRANTED.
Joseph Anthony Favors ("Favors") is civilly committed as a "sexually dangerous person" and "sexual psychopathic personality" at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program in Moose Lake, Minnesota ("MSOP"). (Compl., [Docket No. 1], ¶ 21). On February 21, 2013, Favors initiatedthe present action by filing his pro se Complaint, [Docket No. 1], against the DOC Defendants, Defendant OHFC, and fifty-one other individual and institutional Defendants, alleging claims arising out of the August 23, 2010, revocation of his supervised release and subsequent imprisonment with DoC for stalking Michelle Hoover ("Hoover") at the MSOP.2 In his Complaint, Favors alleges that at MSOP he was also subject to punitive confinement, a counter-therapeutic environment, inadequate treatment, retaliation, interference with making complaints, discharge from treatment, isolation, imprisonment, a false criminal charge, cruel and unusual abuses, and loss of personal property. (Id. at ¶¶ 100-02, 196-270, 330, 434-36).
Favors alleged that, beginning on December 8, 2009, Hoover, then a security counselor at the MSOP, filed the first of a series of ten false reports against him. (Id. at ¶¶ 42, 103-28, 130-33, 150-55, 165-83, and 187-95). Beginning at about that same time, Favors started filing complaints against Hoover with the Office of Special Investigations and a number of the named Defendants, alleging that Hoover had made false, retaliatory reports against him because he had reported her inappropriate relationship with a patient at the MSOP. (Id. at ¶¶ 44-45, 112, 115, 118, 122, 129). On January 8, 2010, Favors filed one such complaint, to which he attached supporting affidavits from other MSOP patients, reporting that they had seen evidence that Hoover was engaging in a sexual relationship with Michael Crow ("Crow"), another MSOP patient. (Id. at ¶ 129). One of the other patients providing the attached affidavits was given, and passed, a polygraph test. (Id.).
Hoover and Favors continued to file complaints against each other. (Id. at ¶¶ 144-64). On March 12 and 13, 2010, Hoover wrote a report accusing Favors of stalking her. (Id. at ¶¶ 165-77). Favors wrote a complaint about Hoover, alleging that her report had been false and Favors urged Jamie Jungers, Dianna Magaard and Beth Virden, who were employed in the Office ofSpecial Investigations, to review security camera footage that would exonerate him. (Id. at ¶¶ 176, 178-83).3 On May 16, 2010, Favors filed a complaint about Jungers, asserting that Jungers was not interested in following up on Favors' complaints about Hoover and asking that Jungers be removed from investigating Favors' complaints. (May 16, 2010, Complaint, Ex. 26, [Docket No. 106-2] 25-50; May 16, 2010, Complaint, Ex. 26, [Docket No. 106-3], 1).
In May 2010, Hoover wrote her tenth allegedly false and retaliatory report against Favors, requesting that he be placed on an Individual Program Plan (an "I.P.P."), restricting Favors from activities in the recreation and education areas of the MSOP from noon until 9:00 p.m., while Hoover was in those areas. (Id. at ¶¶ 187-98). Favors filed a complaint about this to the Hospital Review Board (the "HRB") on January 23, 2012. (Id. at ¶ 201).
Favors alleges that, on June 10, 2010, Deb Konieska4 wrote a false Quarterly Review Report ("QRR")5 accusing Favors of targeting several female staff members even after he had received numerous directives to stop doing so, of making false allegations against Hoover, and of complaining when female staff members did not agree with his grievances. (Id. at ¶ 216).6 The report said Favors' motive was to watch Hoover whenever she was near Crow and to document their interactions. (Id.). In doing so, he violated three rules that quarter. (Id.). Favors complained about this QRR to the HRB. (Id. at ¶¶ 217, 238). Konieska's allegations against him in the QRR were used also against him in his supervised release revocation hearing. (Id. at ¶ 220). On the same day the QRR was issued, Favors was placed in isolation and his legal materials were confiscated so that MSOP staff could conduct a criminal investigation into claims that Favorshad been stalking Hoover. (Id. at ¶¶ 229-42). Favors filed complaints and grievances about a number of the conditions of his stay in isolation. (Exs. 44-47, [Docket No. 106-3], 88-102).
Favors was then charged with violating the conditions of his supervised release by stalking Hoover. (Id. at ¶ 253). On or about August 4, 2010, Favors was transferred from the MSOP to the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Lino Lakes, Minnesota, where he was held until his supervised release revocation hearing. (Id. at ¶ 249).
On August 23, 2010, the Hearings and Release Unit of the Department of Corrections (the "DOC") held a release revocation hearing presided over by DOC hearing officer Defendant Deborah Schadegg. (Id. at ¶¶ 253, 264). According to Favors, at the hearing, Hoover gave false testimony about his conduct and about her sexual relationship with Crow. (Id. at ¶¶ 253-66). Dianna Magaard also allegedly testified falsely that she had told Favors on four occasions not to file any more complaints against Hoover. (Id. at ¶ 210).
Favors also alleges that, at the hearing, his counsel attempted to offer affidavits from other patients of the MSOP, but that Defendant Schadegg did not accept the affidavits into evidence. (Id. at ¶ 264). Favors' reference to the offering of affidavits at the revocation hearing appears to refer to the following discussion which took place at the hearing:
Favors: Now, I have other affidavits from other people, you know, Dan Johnson, they sometime in November or December he walked into the legal room. And he says...
Schadegg: You can't tell me what he said. I would have to hear it from him. Okay. That's the problem with what you're putting on paper here and what you're saying. Is it's all hearsay, hearsay, hearsay.
Favors' counsel: If he has an affidavit though, he can submit an affidavit.
Schadegg: Is it notarized?
Favors: Yes it is.
Schadegg: I...I'm not interested in what Mr. Johnson saw or thinks he saw or told Mr. Favors that he saw. Because . . . simply because he put it in paper doesn't mean that it's true.
Favors' counsel: Well, that doesn't mean it's true. But we're not trying to prove or disprove ...
Schadegg: No. I believe that Johnson and a ...
Favors' counsel: ...what actually happened [unintelligible]...
Schadegg: ...bunch of other people gave Mr. Favors information and a lot of it was information about what he wanted to hear. Just from listening to Joe, I'm sure that there is a couple guys that played you like a fiddle. And Burton is one of' em.
Favors counsel: I would just state in general that it is relevant to his state of mind certainly.
Schadegg: I've got it. I've got all that.
Favors' counsel: Okay.
(Recording of August 23, 2010, Hearing, Ex. 2 to Schadegg Affidavit, [Docket No. 241-2], at 1:26:42-1:27:50).
At the end of the hearing, Defendant Schadegg issued an oral decision finding that Favors had violated the conditions of his supervised release by his actions with regard to Hoover, which Defendant Schadegg reasoned Favors had based on the assumptions and stories that had been communicated to him by other MSOP patients, and which Defendant Schadegg concluded had exceeded his right to file a complaint under the Minnesota Patient's Bill of Rights. (Id. at 00:20-01:25, 2:15-2:30). Defendant Schadegg revoked Favors' supervised release, stating that she had based her decision on the testimony of Michelle Hoover, Dianna Maagard, Favors, and the submitted documentation. (Id. at 00:20-1:00).
Following the hearing, Favors was transferred from MSOP to the DOC Minnesota Correctional Facility in Stillwater, Minnesota. (Id. at ¶¶ 263, 267; Order Partially DismissingHabeas Pet. & Changing Venue, Ex. 48, [Docket No. 106-3], 103-111). The imprisonment term was set to last until February 11, 2011. (Compl., [Docket No. 1], ¶ 263). Favors appealed the decision revoking his supervised release to DOC Hearings and Release Unit executive officer Defendant Jeffrey Peterson, who affirmed the revocation. (Exs. 4-5 to Schadegg Affidavit, [Docket No. 241-4]). Favors remained in the Stillwater Correctional Facility for seven months, until his sentence expired on February 11, 2011. (Compl., [Docket No. 1], ¶ 263).
In the meantime, Hoover and others instigated a criminal complaint against Favors for stalking.7 (Id. at ¶¶ 267-68). As a result, Favors was taken in chains and shackles to Carlton County District Court. (Id. at ¶ 270).8 On December 3, 2010, the complaint was dismissed "in the interests of justice." (Ex. 58, [Docket No. 106-3], at 116).
In October 2010, MSOP patient Crow was facing revocation of his own supervised release. (Compl., [Docket No. 1], ¶ 276). Favors contends that Crow made a deal with Jamie Jungers to provide information about Crow's relationship with Hoover in exchange for not revoking his supervised release. (Id.). On October 15, 2010, Hoover was fired "for doing everything alleged in Mr. Favors'...
To continue reading
Request your trial