United States District Court, D. Minnesota
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AS
Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on the January 27, 2017 Report and
Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge
Franklin L. Noel. (Dkt. 37.) Plaintiffs are civilly committed
individuals in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program who
previously were involved in a sexual relationship. Plaintiffs
filed this action seeking monetary and injunctive relief,
alleging that Defendants' decision to deny
Plaintiffs' request to be roommates violated their civil
rights. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants'
denial of their roommate request violated (1) Title II of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a,
et seq.; (2) the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn.
Stat. §§ 363A.01, et seq.; (3) the equal
protection clause of the United States Constitution, U.S.
Const. amend. XIV, § 1, and the equivalent protections
under the Minnesota Constitution, Minn. Const. art. I, §
2; and (4) Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000b, et seq. The R&R
recommends granting Defendants' motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. No objections to
the R&R have been filed.
absence of timely objections, this Court reviews an R&R
for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory
committee's note (“When no timely objection is
filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no
clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.”); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d
793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Having conducted a careful review,
the Court finds no clear error as to the R&R's
recommendation that the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' request for monetary
damages. Plaintiffs also fail to state a claim on which
relief can be granted under Titles II and III of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a, et
seq., 2000b, et seq.; and the equal protection
clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amend.
XIV, § 1, and the equivalent protections under the
Minnesota Constitution, Minn. Const. art. I, § 2.
Court modifies the R&R, however, as it pertains to
Plaintiffs' claim that Defendants violated the Minnesota
Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.01 et
seq. When a district court dismisses all pending federal
claims, it need not exercise jurisdiction over the remaining
state-law claims. A district court instead should
“exercise judicial restraint and avoid state law issues
wherever possible.” Condor Corp. v. City of St.
Paul, 912 F.2d 215, 220 (8th Cir. 1990). Because the
Court dismisses each of Plaintiffs' federal claims, the
Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs'
claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
the Court adopts as modified the R&R's recommendation
that this matter be dismissed with prejudice. A dismissal
with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits.
Semtek Int'l, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531
U.S. 497, 505 (2001). The dismissal of a complaint
traditionally is without prejudice unless the complaint is so
deficient or defective that it cannot be cured. See,
e.g., Wolff v. Bank of New York Mellon, 997
F.Supp.2d 964, 980 n.8 (D. Minn. 2014). Here, only
Plaintiffs' claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
the Minnesota Constitution are fatally flawed. Neither Title
II nor Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects
against claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a, et seq.,
2000b, et seq. (both prohibiting discrimination on
the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin). And
42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not provide a private right of
action under the Minnesota Constitution. See Kurtz v.
City of Shrewsbury, 245 F.3d 753, 758 (8th Cir. 2001).
For these reasons, the Court dismisses with prejudice only
Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the Minnesota Constitution, and dismisses without
prejudice the remaining claims.
on the R&R, the foregoing analysis, and all of the files,
records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
January 27, 2017 R&R, (Dkt. 37), is ADOPTED AS MODIFIED;
Defendants' motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 29), is GRANTED, and
Plaintiffs' complaint is DISMISSED as follows:
a. Count I is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
b. Count II is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
c. Count III, to the extent that it asserts a claim under the
Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution,
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT
d. Count III, to the extent that it asserts a claim for a
violation of the Minnesota Constitution, Minn. Const. art. I,
§ 2, ...