United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Lloyd A. Hartleib, Plaintiff,
Blake Carey, Paul Mayfield, Heidi Menard, Stephanie Saxe, Joseph Miller, Jordan Goodman, Lori Aldrin, Cindy Churro, Randal Gordon, Nathan Johnson, Sara Kulas, and Kevin Moser, Defendants.
A. Goodwin, Esq. and Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq., Gustafson
Gluek PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Lloyd Hartleib.
Jeffrey Weber, Esq., Assistant Minnesota Attorney General,
St. Paul, MN, on behalf of Defendants Blake Carey, Paul
Mayfield, Heidi Menard, Stephanie Saxe, Jordan Goodman, Lori
Aldrin, Cindy Churro, Randal Gordon, Nathan Johnson, Sara
Kulas, and Kevin Moser.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge
for a ruling on Plaintiff Lloyd A. Hartleib's
(“Hartleib”) Objections [Docket No. 54] to
Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel's August 22, 2016
Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 53]
(“R&R”). In the R&R, Judge Noel
recommends granting Defendants Blake Carey, Paul Mayfield,
Heidi Menard, Stephanie Saxe, Jordan Goodman, Lori Aldrin,
Cindy Churro, Randal Gordon, Nathan Johnson, Sara Kulas, and
Kevin Moser's (collectively, “Defendants”)
Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 40]. After a de novo review of
the record, and for the reasons stated below, Hartleib's
Objections are overruled and the R&R is adopted.
is a civilly committed involuntary detainee in the Minnesota
Sex Offender Program (“MSOP”) in Moose Lake,
Minnesota. Am. Compl. [Docket No. 34] ¶ 6. Defendants
are employees at the Moose Lake MSOP facility. Id.
¶¶ 7-18. Hartleib filed this action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 after allegedly being physically assaulted by his
roommate, who is also an MSOP detainee in Moose Lake. See
generally Am. Comp.
Amended Complaint asserts the assault occurred the night of
May 24, 2015, when Hartleib's roommate was under the
influence of drugs or alcohol. Id. ¶ 32. The
roommate jumped on Hartleib while he was in his bed and
punched him, giving him a swollen black eye. Id. The
day after the assault, Hartleib approached the staff desk and
informed the staff that he had tripped and fallen in his room
during the night. Id. ¶ 33. He denied that
there had been a physical altercation with his roommate.
Id. On May 28, 2015, four days after the assault,
Hartleib informed Defendant Carey that his roommate was the
person who had hit him in the eye. Id. ¶ 35.
Hartleib stated that he was reporting the assault because his
roommate had been “bragging to his peers about it,
” and his friends “were making comments about him
being hit.” Id. ¶ 35.
has brought three claims: failure to protect (Count I);
failure to train and supervise (Count II); and
unconstitutional custom or practice (Count III). Defendants
moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Judge Noel granted the
motion as to all counts and dismissed the case with
prejudice. R&R at 4-7.
objects to the dismissal of the failure to protect claim
(Count I). Judge Noel determined that dismissal of this claim
was appropriate because Hartleib had not alleged sufficient
facts to show that Defendants knew of and disregarded the
risk he faced from his roommate. R&R at 5-6.
argues that the Amended Complaint alleges facts showing that
he repeatedly raised concerns about his roommate's drug
and alcohol use and Hartleib's fear of being labeled a
snitch. Hartleib contends that these allegations clearly
demonstrate Defendants' knowledge of, and disregard for,
the risks he faced from his roommate.
the Amended Complaint alleges that on April 9, 2015, Hartleib
informed Defendant Mayfield that his roommate was using drugs
and pushing Hartleib to participate in “criminal
activity.” Am. Compl. ¶ 25. Hartleib stated that
his roommate is a “good guy” but is “too
mixed up in stuff.” Id. Hartleib also told
Mayfield that he (Hartleib) was concerned about being labeled
a snitch by his peers, and that he would begin looking for a
new roommate. Id. On April 14, 2015, Hartleib told
Mayfield that his roommate was crushing and snorting
contraband pills and refused to stop. Id. ¶ 27.
On April 19, 2015, Hartleib approached a staff desk and gave
Defendant Churro a hand written note that his roommate
“will start drinking at 1:30.” Id.
¶ 28. The note stated that Hartleib had been blamed for
stealing his roommate's food, so he asked that Churro
“not do nothing right away but just watch him closely.
I am giving you this information because I am sick of it
all.” Id. On April 23, Hartleib again reported
that his roommate was “messed up, ” meaning he
was “intoxicated in some way.” Id.
¶ 29. On May 20, 2015, Hartleib submitted a Client
Request Form to Defendants Carey, Menard, and Mayfield
expressing that he wanted “[n]o roommate.”
Id. ¶ 31.
contends that these allegations sufficiently allege that
Defendants had subjective knowledge of the risk to Hartleib
posed by his roommate, because being locked in a cell at
night with an intoxicated sex offender and being labeled a
snitch in the prison-like environment of MSOP were obvious
risks to his safety.
also argues that if this Court adopts the R&R, he should
be given the opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint
because he has now learned that on at least two occasions in
recent years, his assailant was transferred from MSOP ...