United States District Court, D. Minnesota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
LEO I. BRISBOIS, Magistrate Judge.
This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge upon Defendant Dennis Genereau's Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 10]. The case has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.1. The Court took Defendant Genereau's Motion under advisement on the parties' written submissions. For reasons outlined below, the Court recommends that Defendant Genereau's Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 10], be GRANTED.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff Joseph Anthony Favors ("Plaintiff") is civilly committed in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program in Moose Lake, Minnesota (MSOP). On February 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986, alleging numerous civil rights violations and naming numerous Defendants. (Compl. [Docket No. 1]). In his Complaint, Plaintiffs states, "This litigation addresses only the treatment he has or has not received while he has been confined [at MSOP], the unconstitutional punishment that has been imposed on him while he has been confined, and the counter-therapeutic employee misconduct under which he is confined." (Id. ¶ 98).
Specifically with regard to Defendant Genereau, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that from 2009 through 2011, Defendant Genereau was employed by the State of Minnesota as an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for Carlton County, Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 59). Plaintiff claims that in this capacity, Defendant was "responsible for assuring State created liberty interests, constitutional rights, and upholding the laws of Minnesota." (Id.)
In his capacity as an Assistant Carlton County Prosecutor, Defendant Genereau brought criminal charges against Plaintiff in 2010 - charges which were later dismissed. In reference to these 2010 charges, Plaintiff alleges:
Mr. Genereau has authority and responsibility for the criminal complaint and the charges therein he filed against Mr. Favors in 2010; responsible to assure that legal standards related thereto are within constitutional laws of the United States against retaliation; responsible for all allegations he made against Mr. Favors in the aforesaid complaint; responsible for implementing all Mr. Favors' civil rights (State, federal, and Constitutional); responsible for the criminal charges he brings against a citizen of the United States; responsible for abiding by legal limits at all times as an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for Carlton County; and responsible for the custody, shackles, chains, handcuffs, four hour security vehicle ride, one day in Carlton County District Court, personal and physical traumas of the ordeal to Mr. Favors in (about) October 2010 by bringing criminal charges against Mr. Favors related directly to lawfully filled complaints.
(Id.) Plaintiff goes on to allege that Defendant Genereau knew or should have known that the underlying criminal charges against Plaintiff "violated the law, " yet Defendant Genereau nevertheless "approved" the charges and the scope and manner of Plaintiff's prosecution. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Genereau's involvement in Plaintiff's 2010 criminal prosecution provides the basis for Plaintiff's allegations of "unconstitutional abuse, unconstitutional criminal charges by Complaint, unconstitutional witness testimony, unconstitutional evidence... [and] brutally cruel and wanton abuse...." (Id.) In this capacity, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Genereau is responsible for depriving Plaintiff of his constitutional rights.
More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Genereau unconstitutionally used Defendant Hoover's "stalking report" (filed against Plaintiff on or about March 12, 2010) to pursue the criminal charges filed against Plaintiff in Carlton County. (Id. ¶ 79).
Mr. Favors alleges that Defendants... [list of multiple Defendants]... Dennis Genereau, et al, knew or should have known that the Criminal Complaint violated State, federal and constitutional laws, and, Mr. Favors' civil rights to file complaints " free from interference, restraint, coercion, reprisal, threatening discharge from treatment, punishment, " against Defendant Michelle Hoover.
Mr. Favors alleges that Defendants including specifically... [list of multiple Defendants]... Dennis Genereau, et al., subjected Mr. Favors to damages, including, but not limited to, unconstitutional criminal complaint with the intent and purpose to wrongfully prosecute Mr. Favors to imprison him; emotional anguish and fear of wrongful conviction; intimidation, humiliation, harassment; false allegations; use of State authority under the color of law for personal revenge and retaliation; physical chains, handcuffs, shackles for eight hours in the caged back of a security vehicle; a day in Carlton County District Court; pain and suffering of physical, emotional, and psychological stress/extreme abuse; civil rights violations; bias; violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitutional; violation of the Minnesota Constitution; violation of State and federal Statutes; violation of State Regulations.
(Id. ¶¶ 269-270) (emphasis in original).
These allegations represent all allegations in Plaintiff's 104-page Complaint ...