Pittman v. Jesson
| Decision Date | 30 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 12-cv-1410 (SRN/TNL) |
| Parties | Michael Pittman, Plaintiff, v. Lucinda Jesson, Nancy Johnston, Kevin Moser, Terry Kneisel, Brian Ninneman, Rob Rose, Thomas Snedker, Robert Bender, Justin Wright, Tom Cherro, Janelle Luczak, Jeanne Dreher, Jessica Ranem, Mike Anderson, and Amanda Furey in their individual and official capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Daniel E. Gustafson and Raina Borrelli, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600, Minneapolis, MN, 55402, for Plaintiff.
Adam H. Welle, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100, St. Paul, MN, 55101-2128, for Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Objections [Doc. No. 26] and Defendants' Objections [Doc. No. 27] to United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung's July 31, 2014, Report and Recommendation ("R & R"). The magistrate judge recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint be granted in part and denied in part. (R & R at 47 [Doc. No. 24].) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Objections are overruled in part and sustained in part. Defendants'Objections are similarly overruled in part and sustained in part.
The Magistrate Judge's R & R thoroughly documents the factual and procedural background of the case, which is incorporated here by reference. The 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims in this case arise from alleged racial and religious discrimination that Michael Pittman ("Pittman" or "Plaintiff") experienced, and continues to experience, as a patient in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program ("MSOP"). 1 (See generally Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 10].) The MSOP is maintained by the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services. See Minn. Stat. Ann. § 246B.02.
Plaintiff was civilly committed to the MSOP on December 1, 2010 under Minn. Stat. § 253B.185. (Am. Compl. ¶ 4 [Doc. No. 10]; Defs.' Mem. of Law in Support of Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss at 3 [Doc. No. 17].) He is an African American2 and is a practicing Muslim. (Am. Compl. ¶ 23 [Doc. No. 10].)
Plaintiff alleges that he has experienced ongoing racial discrimination by MSOP staff since he was committed. (Id. ¶ 25.) However, he contends that "the discriminationworsened in July 2012 following an incident Plaintiff was involved in on his living unit." (Id.) Furthermore, Pittman alleges several incidents of MSOP staff treating black and white patients unequally, or inadequately responding to complaints of unequal treatment.
Pittman alleges that he had an altercation with a group of MSOP Security Counselors in July 2012. (Id.) The group of MSOP Security Counselors included Defendants Robert Bender, Justin Wright, Tom Cherro, Janail Luczak, Jeanne Dreher, and Jessica Ranem. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that after the July 2012 altercation, this group of Security Counselors threatened to kill him and repeatedly called him racial epithets. (Id.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the Security Counselors made statements such as, "I hate that nigger," "I wish he was dead," and "If I get my hands on that nigger, I'm going to kill him." (Id.) They also referred to Plaintiff as "monkey" and "ape." (Id.) In his Amended Complaint, Pittman does not clarify whether each named Defendant made each of these comments or used each of the listed racial epithets. Nor does Pittman clarify whether these statements were made directly to him, or whether he was informed by a third party that the Security Counselors made these comments.
Pursuant to § 1983, Plaintiff claims that Defendants Robert Bender, Justin Wright, Tom Cherro, Janail Luczak, Jeanne Dreher, and Jessica Ranem are liable for violating the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution because they continuously raciallydiscriminate against Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 49-54.)
Plaintiff additionally alleges that as a black man, he is observed by MSOP staff more closely than white patients. (Id. ¶ 32.) He specifically alleges that on January 16, 2013, Defendant Luczak, one of the Security Counselors who called Plaintiff racial slurs, followed Plaintiff as he moved around his living unit. (Id.)
Pittman also alleges that while he was walking to Health Services on February 16, 2013, an unnamed Security Counselor said to him, "What up snicker." (Id. ¶ 26.) Defendant Tom Snedker, also a MSOP Security Counselor, overheard this exchange. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that the term "snicker" was used in place of the epithet "nigger." (Id.) Defendant Snedker attempted to persuade Plaintiff that the greeting was not meant as a racial slur. (Id. ¶ 26.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Snedker "did not ask the Security Counselor to explain himself, apologize, or address the statement in any way." (Id.) Pittman brings an equal protection race discrimination claim against Defendant Snedker, pursuant to § 1983, for his failure to intervene or reprimand his fellow Security Counselor.
Plaintiff further alleges that he discussed the "snicker" incident with MSOP Program Manager, Defendant Terry Kneisel. (Id.) Defendant Kneisel allegedly "told Plaintiff that he would not discuss the issue with his staff and that staff does not have to offer Plaintiff an explanation or apology for using the word 'snicker.'" (Id.) Plaintiff's equal protection claim against Defendant Kneisel appears to be based on Kneisel's affirmative refusal to investigate Plaintiff's claim.
Pittman additionally alleges that on March 11, 2012, he was engaged in "horseplay" with another black patient. (Id. ¶ 27.) Defendant Mike Anderson, a MSOP Security Counselor, reprimanded Plaintiff for this behavior. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that later that same day, a group of white patients were engaged in "horseplay" in front of Defendant Anderson, but Anderson did not reprimand the white patients. (Id.)
Defendant Amanda Furey, another MSOP Security Counselor, was directly beside Defendant Anderson while the white patients engaged in "horseplay." (Id.) Like Defendant Anderson, she also did not reprimand the white patients for their behavior. However, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Furey treated black patients engaged in "horseplay" differently from white patients.
Pittman alleges that Defendant Rob Rose, MSOP Unit Director for 1-D, is liable for violating Plaintiff's rights under the Equal Protection Clause because he failed to ensure that the MSOP Security Counselors treat black and white patients similarly. Plaintiff specifically alleges two incidents in which Defendant Rose failed to adequately respond to complaints of unequal treatment.
The first incident occurred on September 28, 2011. (Id. ¶ 31.) On that day, Plaintiff submitted a client request form to Defendant Rose, which stated that "[S]ecurity [C]ounselors on Unit 1-D allowed white patients to congregate in a group and talk with each other while on the unit[,] but did not allow black patients to do the same." (Id.) Plaintiff'sAmended Complaint is silent as to whether Defendant Rose responded to this complaint.
The second incident occurred on March 18, 2012. (Id. ¶ 30.) As a practicing Muslim, Pittman is committed to wearing his Kufi, "which is a head covering that Muslim men wear as a symbol of humility at all times," in order "to identify his religious affiliation." (Id. ¶ 40.) However, the MSOP rules and staff members prohibit Plaintiff from wearing his Kufi except when he is inside his cell and during Jumah services, which are held from 12:30-1:30 pm on Fridays. (Id. ¶¶ 40-41.) If MSOP staff determine that a patient has violated a behavioral rule, they may issue a Behavioral Expectation Report ("BER"). (Id. ¶ 28.) On March 18, 2012, Plaintiff received a BER for wearing a "hat," his Kufi, outside of his unit. (Id. ¶ 30.) Later the same day, Pittman alleges he "observed white patients wearing hats out of their units before going outdoors and none of them received any reprimands or a BER." (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he submitted a client request to Defendant Rose regarding this perceived unequal use of the BER disciplinary tool for black and white patients. (Id.) Defendant Rose allegedly responded to this request by stating that "all patients are held to the same standards." (Id.) Plaintiff contends that because the unequal treatment persists, Defendant Rose's response was perfunctory and disingenuous. (See id. ¶ 39.)
Pittman alleges that Defendant Brian Ninneman, MSOP Unit Director of the Omega Unit and Behavioral Therapy Unit Supervisor (id. ¶ 9, 33), also failed to adequately respond to two reports of unequal treatment.
The first report was on February 8, 2013, when Plaintiff overheard another MSOPpatient repeatedly use the word "nigger." (Id. ¶ 33.) In response to this incident, Plaintiff filed a client request form with Defendant Brian Ninneman. (Id.) Defendant Ninneman allegedly responded by explaining that "all reports of racial remarks are taken seriously and followed up on." (Id.) Approximately one month later, Pittman again heard the same MSOP patient repeatedly use the word "nigger." (Id.) Plaintiff reported this incident to Security Counselor Tom Macie and filed an additional client request form. (Id.) Plaintiff does not specify to whom he submitted the form. Instead, he alleges that the response to his complaint stated that "the issue was addressed by staff." (Id.)
The second report of unequal treatment by Ninneman was on February 9, 2013, when Pittman submitted a client request form to Ninneman, "asking why patients are allowed to use discriminatory language without consequences." (Id. ¶ 34.) Ninneman allegedly responded that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial