Sorenson v. Minn. Dep't of Human Servs.
| Decision Date | 31 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | Court File No. 13-cv-2958 (ADM/LIB) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
| Parties | Eric Michael Sorenson, Plaintiff, v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al., Defendants. |
This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge upon the State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 28]; Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Default Judgment, [Docket No. 57]; Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Default Judgment, [Docket No. 80]; Plaintiff's Motion to Consider the Defendants' Current Motion to Dismiss Moot or Denied, [Docket No. 88]; Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, [Docket No. 92]; the State Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint, [Docket No. 100]; and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Supplemental Complaint as of Right or Freely, [Docket No. 124]. This case has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 72.1.
For reasons articulated herein, the Court orders that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, [Docket No. 92], is GRANTED; and that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Supplemental Complaint as of Right or Freely, [Docket No. 124], is GRANTED.
For the reasons articulated herein, the Court recommends that the State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 28], be GRANTED in its entirety; that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Default Judgment, [Docket No. 57], be DENIED as moot; that Plaintiff's Motion forPartial Default Judgment, [Docket No. 80], be DENIED as moot; that Plaintiff's Motion to Consider the Defendants' Current Motion to Dismiss Moot or Denied, [Docket No. 88], be DENIED; and that the State Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint, [Docket No. 100], be GRANTED in its entirety.
Plaintiff Eric Michael Sorenson ("Plaintiff"), a patient civilly committed in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program ("MSOP"), proceeding pro se, initiated the present lawsuit on or about October 29, 2013, naming as Defendants numerous departments and employees of the State of Minnesota (collectively, the ) along with two civilly committed MSOP patients. (Compl. [Docket No. 1]). On March 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Complaint, [Docket No. 70], alleging additional claims and implicating additional employees of the State of Minnesota. Accordingly, Plaintiff sets forth the allegations and claims at issue in the present case via two separate vehicles: the original Complaint, [Docket No. 1], and a Supplemental Complaint, [Docket No. 70].
On or about October 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint in the present federal civil rights action, demanding relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's original Complaint, [Docket No. 1], alleges approximately twenty-three (23) counts against numerous Defendants arising out of two separate incidents of assault, alleged to have occurred during Plaintiff's civil commitment at MSOP. Plaintiff generally alleges that the named State Defendants,1 sued in boththeir individual and official capacities, "[f]ailed to protect that Plaintiff from a serious risk of harm to a brutal sexual and physical assault at the hands of other clients [detained at MSOP]." (Id. ¶¶ 2a, 31). Plaintiff alleges one count of deliberate indifference to "an extreme risk of physical assault," in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and the Minnesota state constitution; one count of deliberate indifference to the "risk of brutal sexual assault," in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and the Minnesota state constitution; one count of failure to provide adequate procedural due process; one count of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs following assault, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and the Minnesota state constitution; one count of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs following sexual assault, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and the Minnesota state constitution; four counts of failure to protect Plaintiff, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and the Minnesota state constitution; three counts of retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment and equitable provisions of the Minnesota state constitution; one count of "censorship," in violation of the First Amendment and equitable provisions of the Minnesota state constitution; two counts of conspiracy, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985; one count of negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress; two counts of negligence; one count of defamation; and one count of reprisal. (Id. at Counts 1-20). Additionally, Plaintiff alleges one count of assault and battery; one count of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; and one count of false imprisonment against fellow MSOP patients Joel Brown and Jeremy Hammond. (Id. at Counts 21-23). Plaintiff appears to generally allege all claims save Counts 21, 22, and 23 against all State Defendants collectively.
As mentioned, the underlying facts alleged in Plaintiff's original Complaint in support of Plaintiff's 23 claims revolve around two alleged assaults. First, Plaintiff alleges that on or about October 18, 2013, at approximately 11:00 p.m., MSOP patient Joel Brown physically assaulted Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 32-33). Plaintiff alleges that the State Defendants, collectively, are to blame for the assault due to their "deliberate indifference" and their hand in placing Defendant Brown and Plaintiff in the same room. (Id. ¶ 32, 34). Plaintiff generally alleges that he informed the State Defendants, collectively, that he and Defendant Brown were "not getting along" prior to the assault, that Plaintiff and Defendant Brown had attempted to resolve their differences via "staff facilitated mediated sessions," and that these sessions were ultimately unproductive. (Id. ¶¶ 35-37). Plaintiff alleges that the State Defendants, collectively, denied Plaintiff's request(s) to "remove himself" from Defendant Brown and that the State Defendants, collectively, should have known that Plaintiff was at risk of being assaulted, "as Mr. Brown has had an excessive history of physical violence . . . ." (Id. ¶¶ 39, 41). Plaintiff attempts to document the State Defendants' alleged deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's risk of assault by alleging that they had made comments to Plaintiff including, "you guys seem to be pissed off at each other because you both threatened each other." (Id. ¶ 42).
In connection with this first alleged underlying assault, Plaintiff asserts that the Health Services Department at MSOP failed to adequately examine Plaintiff for a concussion following the assault and failed to provide Plaintiff with adequate medical care generally. (Id. ¶ 46). Plaintiff further alleges that the State Defendants, collectively, retaliated against Plaintiff when he threatened to sue the State Defendants as a result of the underlying assault, as evidenced by the fact that the State Defendants issued Plaintiff a "Major Behavioral Expectations Report (BER)" stating that Plaintiff had been threatening others. (Id. ¶¶ 48, 50).
With regard to the second alleged underlying assault, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Jeremy Hammond, also civilly committed at MSOP, sexually assaulted Plaintiff sometime in 2012. (Id. ¶ 54). Plaintiff again blames the State Defendants, collectively, for their deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's risk of sexual assault. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he informed the State Defendants that, prior to the alleged assault, Defendant Hammond had threated to sexually assault Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 56). Plaintiff alleges that after seeing a doctor outside of MSOP following the reported sexual assault, the State Defendants received "orders" to test Plaintiff for sexually transmitted diseases; however, according to Plaintiff, the State Defendants claimed to have lost the medical orders and Plaintiff did not receive the prescribed testing for sexually transmitted diseases. (Id. ¶¶ 61-63).
Plaintiff generally alleges that the State Defendants are collectively responsible for Plaintiff's alleged injuries, and that the State Defendants have generally "enacted and follow[ed] policies, practices, procedures, whether verbally stated in whatever media or non-verbally stated by the natural Defendants themselves and/or any person(s) acting in concert, which have contributed and/or are the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries as specifically set forth above." (Id. ¶¶ 78, 79, 91, 92, 100, 101, 110, 111, 122, 123, 132, 133, 140, 141, 148, 149, 154, 155, 163, 164, 171, 172, 183, 184, 191, 192, 201, 202, 211, 212). Additionally, Plaintiff generally alleges that the "supervisory" State Defendants - specifically, Defendants Jesson, Johnston, Hebert, Berg, and Moser - failed to adequately train their respective subordinates. (Id. ¶¶ 77, 90, 99, 109, 121, 131, 139, 147, 153, 162, 170, 182, 190, 200, 210).
In his Supplemental Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that since filing his original Complaint, [Docket No. 1], the State Defendants have committed additional retaliatory actions againstPlaintiff, in violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights; restricted Plaintiff's vocational opportunities within MSOP; and have continued to fail to protect Plaintiff from harm. (Supp. Compl. [Docket No. 70]).
Plaintiff alleges additional supplemental claims against eight additional State Defendants, including the 2012 to present MSOP OSI Department and Respective OSI Employees ("Doe #5"); MSOP employee Todd White; MSOP employee Ciara Macklanburg; MSOP employee Paul Christenson; MSOP employee Charlie Hoffman; MSOP employee Scott Benoit; MSOP employee Terry Kenisel; and "other Jane/John Does[.]" (Id....
To continue reading
Request your trial