Hageman v. Morrison Cnty. Sheriff's Office

• Decision Date: 18 December 2018
• Docket Number: Court File No. 18-cv-1005 (JNE/LIB)
• Parties: Adam R. Hageman, Plaintiff, v. Morrison County Sheriff's Office, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

Adam R. Hageman, Plaintiff, v. Morrison County Sheriff's Office, et al., Defendants.

Court File No. 18-cv-1005 (JNE/LIB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

December 18, 2018

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to an Order of referral from the Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, [Docket No. 24], made in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and upon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. [Docket No. 16]. On October 25, 2018, the Court established a briefing schedule for Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Briefing Schedule [Docket No. 25]). In accordance with the briefing schedule, on November 6, 2018, the Court took Defendants' Motion under advisement on the parties' written submissions. (Id.).

For the reasons discussed herein, the Court recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 16], be GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on April 13, 2018. (Complaint [Docket No. 1]). At the time Plaintiff filed his Complaint, he was incarcerated at Morrison County Jail awaiting his criminal trial. (Ervin Decl., Ex. 3). Generally, Plaintiff brings a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that while he was incarcerated at Morrison County Jail, Defendants¹ violated his constitutionalrights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as, acted negligently. (Id. at 1-2). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants conspired against him to keep his "Catholic Malta Bible" from him in violation of his First Amendment rights. (Id. at 42). Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Whitlow, Defendant Orth, and Defendant Waltman put him in "lockdown" without due process, violating his rights under Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. at 26-27). Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Whitlow destroyed a picture of his pregnant fiancé. (Id. at 31). Plaintiff next alleges that jail staff, as well as, Defendant Orth failed to give him a non-reused icepack for his shoulder after another inmate injured him. (Id. at 36-37). Lastly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ochoa committed domestic terrorism after he set Plaintiff's breakfast on top of Plaintiff's toilet. (Id. at 34).

By his Complaint, Plaintiff requests this Court grant him monetary relief. (Compl., [Docket No. 1], at 41).

In May 2018, Plaintiff's criminal case went to trial and he was found guilty on three felony counts for possession of a firearm, assault with a dangerous weapon, and domestic assault. (Ervin Decl., Ex. 4). Following trial, the court released Plaintiff on bond pending a sentencing hearing, which was originally scheduled for June 2018, but later rescheduled to August 15, 2018. (Ervin Decl., Ex. 3). On August 15, 2018, Plaintiff failed to appear at the sentencing hearing and the court subsequently issued a bench warrant for Plaintiff's arrest, which remains outstanding. (See, Ervin Decl., Ex. 7).

On September 26, 2018, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss, and the undersigned issued an Order establishing a briefing schedule. (Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss [Docket No. 16]; BriefingSchedule [Docket No. 25]). Plaintiff filed his Response to their Motion on October 23, 2018. (Plf.'s Resp. [Docket No. 21]). Defendants filed their Reply on November 5, 2018. (Defs.' Reply [Docket No. 27]). In accordance with the briefing schedule, on November 6, 2018, the Court took Defendants' Motion under advisement on the parties' written submissions. (Id.).

II. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS. [DOCKET NO. 16].

Defendants move the Court for an Order dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, and alternatively seek dismissal without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to properly serve his Complaint on Defendants. (Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss [Docket No. 16]). In his Response, Plaintiff did not address any of Defendants' legal arguments. (Plf.'s Resp. [Docket No. 21]).² In Defendants' Reply, Defendants state that the bench warrant for Plaintiff's arrest remains outstanding and that they believe he is currently in California. (Defs.' Reply, [Docket No. 27]).

A. Standard of Review

The fugitive disentitlement doctrine "provides a federal court with a basis for dismissal in select criminal and civil cases." Barnett v. YMCA, Inc., 268 F.3d 614, 617 (8th Cir. 2001).³ In itsclassic form, "[t]he fugitive disentitlement doctrine permits a court to dismiss a [criminal] defendant's appeal if he flees while [his] appeal is pending." Martin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 1201, 1204 (10th Cir. 2008). "The doctrine has its origin in the criminal context and arises from a court's inherent authority to protect its proceedings and judgments." Martin, 517 F.3d at 1204 (citations omitted). While, the doctrine traditionally applies to a criminal defendant whose right to appeal is forfeited after escaping custody, it has also been applied in the civil context. Perko v. Bowers, 945 F.2d 1038, 1039-40 (8th Cir. 1991).

The doctrine is premised primarily upon a "concern for the enforceability of a court's judgments and a 'disentitlement' theory that construes a defendant's flight during the pendency of his appeal as tantamount to waiver or abandonment." Barnett, 268 F.3d at 617 (quoting Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 240 (1993)); See also, Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820, 824 (1996) ("First, so long as the party cannot be found, the judgment on review may be impossible to enforce . . . . Second, we have said an appellant's escape disentitles him to call upon the resources of the Court for determination of his claims." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine is discretionary. Martin, 517 F.3d at 1206.

When deciding whether to exercise this discretion, relevant factors include (1) the risk of delay or frustration in determining the merits; (2) the danger that a judgment will be unenforceable; (3) the risk of compromising a subsequent criminal prosecution; (4) the indignity visited upon the court; and (5) the need to deter flight from prosecution. Barnett, 268 F.3d at 618 (citing Degen, 517 U.S. at 825, 828). However, a court should exercise discretion in determining whether to dismiss a case based on the circumstances of each individual case. Id. Indeed, "[p]rinciples of deference counsel against using this inherent authority and require its use only as a reasonable response to the problems and concerns that provoke it." Id. The rationales for this doctrine includethe difficulty of enforcement against one not willing to subject himself to the court's authority, the inequity of allowing that "fugitive" to use the resources of the courts only if the outcome is an aid to him, the need to avoid prejudice to the nonfugitive party, and the discouragement of flights from justice. See, Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 366 (1970); See also, Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield v. Finkelstein, 111 F.3d 278, 280 (2d Cir. 1997).

Additionally, in the civil context, the Eighth Circuit has observed that "[t]he fugitive status must have a connection to the civil action, and the dismissal must animate the concerns underlying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine." Barnett, 268 F.3d at 617.

B. Analysis

This Court must first determine whether Plaintiff is a fugitive from justice. "[I]ntent to flee from prosecution or arrest may be inferred from a person's failure to surrender to authorities." In re Assets of Martin, 1 F.3d 1351, 1356 (3d Cir. 1993). The defendant need not leave the jurisdiction, but—while legally outside the jurisdiction—may constructively flee by deciding not to return. Id. Furthermore, courts generally require clear evidence that the person to be sanctioned has fled or is in hiding. See, Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2005) (finding that the Board of Immigration Appeals abused discretion by dismissing appeal under fugitive disentitlement doctrine where there was insufficient evidence the appellant had received notice to report for removal). Cf. Antonio-Martinez v. I.N.S., 317 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that "Antonio-Martinez has been gone for well over two years. By all appearances, he is not coming back"); Parretti v. United States, 143 F.3d 508, 510-11 (1998) (noting that it was undisputed that defendant had fled the country).

In support of their contention that Plaintiff is a fugitive, Defendants submit: (1) an Order of Detention issued by a District Court Judge in Morrison County, Minnesota, on August 9, 2016.(Ervin Decl., Ex. 1); (2) a copy of an order revoking Plaintiff's bail issued on March 19, 2018 (Ervin Decl., Ex. 3); (3) a copy of a jury verdict form finding Plaintiff guilty on three counts, issued May 24, 2018 (Ervin Decl., Ex. 4)⁴; (4) a copy of a release order for Plaintiff, ordering him released but to appear for a hearing on June 20, 2018 (Ervin Decl., Ex. 5); (5) a copy of a warrant for Plaintiff's arrest issued on August 15, 2018, indicating that Plaintiff failed to appear for sentencing. (Ervin Decl., Ex. 7); (6) a copy of a United States Postal Service receipt showing that Plaintiff mailed a courtesy copy of his Response to the present Motion from Bakersfield, California (Ervin Decl., Ex. 9); and (7) a Morrison County Sheriff's Office Incident Report dated November 2, 2018, stating that Plaintiff's parents told an officer that Plaintiff had left Minnesota. (Ervin Decl., Ex. 10).

There is, therefore, clear evidence in the record before the Court that shows that Plaintiff is a fugitive. Specifically, the outstanding warrant for Plaintiff's arrest, as well as, the receipt showing Plaintiff mailed his Response to the present Motion from California show that Plaintiff continues evading arrest and therefore avoid sentencing on his conviction. (Ervin Decl., Ex. 7; Ervin Decl., Ex. 9). Additionally, in his Response, Plaintiff did not dispute that he was currently a fugitive. (Plf.'s Resp. [Docket No. 21]). Based on these reasons,...