Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Semler v. Piper

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

March 22, 2017

RAYMOND L. SEMLER, Plaintiff,
v.
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.

          ORDER

          JOAN N. ERICKSEN United States District Judge

         Pro 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.

         In a 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 jurisdiction;
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.

         Semler objected to the Report and Recommendation, and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.