Harris v. Hammon

• Decision Date: 19 December 2012
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 11–3497 (DSD/JJK).
• Parties: Maurice HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. Laurie HAMMON, in her individual and official capacity; Debbie Cole, in her individual and official capacity; Tom Roy, Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections, in his official capacity; and Ramsey County; Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

914 F.Supp.2d 1026

Maurice HARRIS, Plaintiff,

v.Laurie HAMMON, in her individual and official capacity; Debbie Cole, in her individual and official capacity; Tom Roy, Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections, in his official capacity; and Ramsey County; Defendants.

Civ. No. 11–3497 (DSD/JJK).

United States District Court,

D. Minnesota.

Dec. 19, 2012.

Bradford W. Colbert, Esq., Legal Assistance to Minnesota Prisoners; and Zorislav R. Leyderman, Esq., The Law Office of Zorislav R. Leyderman, for Plaintiff.

Scott A. Grosskreutz, Esq., Minnesota Attorney General's Office, for Defendants Hammon, Cole and Roy.

C. David Dietz, Esq., Ramsey County Attorney's Office, for Defendant Ramsey County.

ORDER

DAVID S. DOTY, District Judge.

The above matter comes before the court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes dated December 4, 2012. No objections have been filed to that Report and Recommendation in the time period permitted. Based on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the court now makes and enters the following order.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Ramsey County's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 19), is GRANTED as follows:

a. Plaintiff's federal-law claim (Count III of Complaint) against Ramsey County is dismissed with prejudice;

b. Supplemental jurisdiction should not be exercised over plaintiff's state-law claims against Ramsey County and those claims are dismissed without prejudice; and

c. Ramsey County is dismissed as a party in this case.

2. Defendants Roy, Hammon, and Cole's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 13), are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Plaintiff's federal-law claim (Count IV of the Complaint) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Tom Roy is dismissed with prejudice;

b. Supplemental jurisdiction should not be exercised over plaintiff's state-law claims against Tom Roy and those claims are dismissed without prejudice;

c. Plaintiff's federal-law claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Laurie Hammon and Debbie Cole in their official capacity are dismissed with prejudice;

d. Plaintiff's federal-law claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants Laurie Hammon and Debbie Cole in their individual capacity is dismissed with prejudice; and

e. Plaintiff's federal-law claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against defendants Laurie Hammon and Debbie Cole in their individual capacity is not dismissed, and the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state-law claims against defendants Hammon and Cole.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JEFFREY J. KEYES, United States Magistrate Judge.

This case is before the Court on Defendants' Hammon, Cole, and Roy's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 13), and Defendant Ramsey County's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 19). The matter has been referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, and D. Minn. LR 72.1. For the reasons stated below, this Court recommends that Defendants' Hammon, Cole, and Roy's (the “DOC Defendants' ”) motion be granted in part and denied in part, and that Defendant Ramsey County's motion be granted.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint. This Court assumes,for purposes of these motions, that these facts are true.

On May 29, 2009, Plaintiff was found guilty of Possession of Firearm by an Ineligible Person, in Ramsey County District Court. Plaintiff was sentenced to a term of 60 months imprisonment and committed to the Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections to serve his sentence. On November 23, 2009, Plaintiff initiated an appeal of his conviction with the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Plaintiff filed his appellate brief on July 8, 2010, arguing that his conviction should be reversed, and on September 1, 2010, the State of Minnesota responded by conceding that Plaintiff's conviction should be reversed on appeal.

Plaintiff then filed a motion in Ramsey County District Court on October 6, 2010, requesting that he be released from the custody of the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Department of Corrections (“DOC”) pending the outcome of his appeal. On October 14, 2010, the Honorable Kathleen R. Gearin, Ramsey County District Court Judge, issued an order in response to Plaintiff's motion. Judge Gearin's order stated, in relevant part, that: (1) “[Plaintiff] shall be released pending the resolution of the appellate process,” (2) “the Minnesota Department of Corrections shall release [Plaintiff] to the custody of the Ramsey County Sheriff,” (3) “[t]he Ramsey County Sheriff shall make arrangements for [Plaintiff] to be transported to the Ramsey County Jail,” and (4) after Plaintiff “has been brought to the Ramsey County Jail, a hearing shall be held wherein the conditions of release will be established.” (Doc. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 13; Doc. No. 27, Affidavit of Zorislav R. Leyderman (“Leyderman Aff.”) ¶ 3, Ex. 2.) Plaintiff was transported from the Minnesota Department of Corrections, Lino Lakes Correctional Facility, to the Ramsey County Jail on or about October 18, 2010.

A release hearing was held on November 4, 2010, during which Ramsey County District Court Judge Robyn Millenacker ordered that Plaintiff be immediately released from the custody of the Ramsey County Sheriff. On November 4, 2010, at approximately 9:45 a.m., Judge Millenacker's clerk sent a “custody status update” email to the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office which stated that Plaintiff was to be immediately released from custody subject to the conditions imposed by Judge Millenacker. Judge Millenacker's clerk received a confirmation email from the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office shortly after 10:00 a.m. But instead of releasing him from jail, the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office transferred Plaintiff back to the custody of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, at the Lino Lakes Correctional Facility.

The next morning, on Friday, November 5, 2010, Plaintiff's attorney Ted Sampsell–Jones contacted Judge Millenacker when he found out that, despite her order, Plaintiff had not been released but had been sent back to state prison. Judge Millenacker then mailed and faxed her release order to the Department of Corrections Lino Lakes Facility so that the officials at the prison would have notice that Plaintiff was ordered released. And Sampsell–Jones began to try to effectuate Plaintiff's immediate release from Lino Lakes so that Plaintiff would not have to spend the weekend incarcerated. For example, throughout the morning and early afternoon, Sampsell–Jones telephoned Defendant Debbie Cole, an official at Lino Lakes, but she did not answer her phone; he left a message on Cole's answering machine at about 11:00 a.m. He learned at 2:00 p.m. that Cole had left for the day without returning his call or responding to his voicemail message, but he found out that Defendant Laurie Hammon, another Lino Lakes official, was handling Plaintiff's release.

Sampsell–Jones was not the only one trying to get Plaintiff released. Judge Millenacker's law clerk telephoned Hammon that day informing her that Plaintiff must be released pursuant to Judge Millenacker's order. Thus, not only did the Lino Lakes facility receive a copy of the order by fax, but Hammon was put on notice of the release order by the Judge's clerk. However, Hammon told Judge Millenacker's clerk that she needed a certified copy of the order before Plaintiff would be released.

After 2:00 p.m., Sampsell–Jones had a series of conversations with Hammon in which he told her that Plaintiff was being unlawfully detained, that he had been calling to get Plaintiff out all day and that no one had responded to or returned his calls. When Hammon told Sampsell–Jones that she needed a certified copy of the release order, Sampsell–Jones offered, at approximately 2:55 p.m., to hand-deliver a copy of the release order to Lino Lakes that same afternoon so that Plaintiff could be released before the weekend. Hammon responded by saying “can you be here in three minutes?” (Doc. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 22.) Hammon refused to wait for Sampsell–Jones to deliver a certified copy of Judge Millenacker's release order and also refused to release Plaintiff based on the fax sent to Lino Lakes by the Judge. So, despite the release order, Plaintiff spent the weekend incarcerated at Lino Lakes.

Sampsell–Jones' frustrations continued the next week. On Monday, November 8, 2010, he contacted the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office to find out why Plaintiff was sent to Lino Lakes on Thursday, November 4, in violation of the court's immediate release order, and he was told that Plaintiff was sent back to Lino Lakes because he was “out on a writ” (which was not the case). Sampsell–Jones also continued his attempt to convince Hammon to release Plaintiff from Lino Lakes but she continued to insist that a certified copy of Judge Millenacker's order be presented.

On Tuesday morning, November 9, 2010, Sampsell–Jones again tried to contact Cole but she did not return his calls or respond to his voicemail message. At about noon, however, Cole telephoned the Minnesota State Appellate Public Defender's Office and admitted that Lino Lakes had received the certified copy of Judge Millenacker's release order but the prison staff was confused because it was “highly unusual.” Sampsell–Jones later telephoned Cole again. Finally reaching her, he explained that Plaintiff was being unlawfully detained and was not out on a writ and that he should have been released on November 4 per the court's release order. Cole responded by changing what she had told the public defender's office about the D.O.C. receiving a certified copy of the order. Now she said that a certified copy had not been received and that Plaintiff would not be released until it was received. When...