Buy This Entire Record For
Semler v. Piper
United States District Court, D. Minnesota
March 22, 2017
RAYMOND L. SEMLER, Plaintiff,
EMILY JOHNSON PIPER, Commissioner of the Department of Human Services; CINDY CHERRO, Security Counselor Lead; SHELBY HALL, Security Counselor; ALLISON COLLINS, LSW; HEIDI MENARD, MSW, LICSW, Clinical Supervisor; JESSICA GEIL, Minnesota Sex Offender Program-Moose Lake Legal Liaison; SHANNON DRAVES, Security Counselor; CHERYL FLOREN, Security Counselor; JORDAN GOODMAN, Unit Director, Complex 1-A; Defendants.
N. ERICKSEN United States District Judge
se plaintiff Raymond L. Semler brought this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendants
violated his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth,
and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Semler is civilly committed under the Minnesota Sex Offender
Program and challenges alleged actions by the various state
employees named in the Complaint alleged to be involved in
administering the program. Defendants moved to dismiss the
Complaint, and Semler filed an opposition.
Report and Recommendation dated January 31, 2017 [Dkt. No.
36], the Honorable Leo I. Brisbois, United States Magistrate
Judge, recommended that:
1. Semler's Section 1983 claims seeking monetary damages
as alleged against Defendants in their official capacities be
dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter
2. Semler's claims against Defendant Emily Johnson Piper
be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted; and
3. Each of the following claims for monetary damages,
injunctive relief, and declaratory relief against Defendants
in their individual capacities, and for injunctive and
declaratory relief against Defendants in their official
capacities, be dismissed without prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted:
a. First Amendment access to courts claims;
b. First Amendment right to access the press claims;
c. First Amendment right to free speech claims;
d. First Amendment retaliation claims;
e. Fourth Amendment claims;
f. Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims; and
g. Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims.
objected to the Report and Recommendation, and ...