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.

Turner v. State

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

November 17, 2017

JOSEPH DAVID TURNER, for himself and a parent of I.T., Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MINNESOTA and SARA L. GREWING, in her official capacity as Presiding Judge, Judicial Branch, Family Court, Ramsey County, Defendants.

          JOSEPH DAVID TURNER, PRO SE.

          KATHRYN IVERSON LANDRUM, FOR DEFENDANTS.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          JOHN R. TUNHEIM CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         Plaintiff Joseph David Turner filed this civil rights action against the State of Minnesota (the “State”) and Ramsey County District Judge Sara L. Grewing (collectively, “Defendants”).[1] Turner's claims arise out of his dissatisfaction with child custody proceedings in state court. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and in a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), United States Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel recommended granting the motion because the State is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and Judge Grewing is entitled to judicial immunity. Because Defendants are entitled to immunity, the Court will adopt the R&R and dismiss Turner's complaint with prejudice.

         BACKGROUND

         On November 21, 2016, Turner filed a civil-rights complaint alleging that various events that occurred during a state-court proceeding to determine the custody of his son violated Turner's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 16-23, Nov. 21, 2016, Docket No. 1.)

         On March 20, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. After briefing and a hearing, on June 7, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R recommending dismissal of the complaint because Judge Grewing is entitled to absolute judicial immunity and the State is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. (R&R at 4-6, June 7, 2017, Docket No. 29.)

         On June 20, 2017, Turner filed a letter to the Court accompanied by a number of exhibits. (See Obj. to R&R, June 20, 2017, Docket No. 30; Sealed Exhibits, June 20, 2017, Docket Nos. 31-59; Audio CD, June 20, 2017, Docket No. 60.) In the letter, Turner states before the hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss, Turner “was told not to file evidence with [the] complaint, ” because “it was not the right time, ” but he was concerned that his evidence had not received “thoughtful consideration.” (Obj. to R&R at 1.) Turner also provided citations to statutes and cases to support his argument that Judge Grewing is not entitled to judicial immunity. (Id. at 1-3.) Turner filed a second letter two days later, containing no legal arguments, with two additional exhibits attached. (Sealed Letter to District Judge, June 22, 2017, Docket No. 63.) The Court construes Turner's letter filed June 20, 2017 as an objection to the R&R.

         ANALYSIS

         I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Upon the filing of a report and recommendation by a magistrate judge, “a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). “The objections should specify the portions of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which objections are made and provide a basis for those objections.” Mayer v. Walvatne, No. 07-1958, 2008 WL 4527774, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2008). “Objections which are not specific but merely repeat arguments presented to and considered by a magistrate judge are not entitled to de novo review, but rather are reviewed for clear error.” Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F.Supp.3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015).

         In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Court considers all facts alleged in the complaint as true to determine if the complaint states a “claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must provide more than “‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Although the Court accepts the complaint's factual allegations as true, it is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

         “A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) challenges the Court's subject matter jurisdiction and requires the Court to examine whether it has authority to decide the claims.” Damon v. Groteboer, 937 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1063 (D. Minn. 2013). In a facial challenge to jurisdiction such as this, “all of the factual allegations concerning jurisdiction are presumed to be true and the motion is successful if the plaintiff fails to allege an element necessary for subject matter jurisdiction.” Titus v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir. 1993). In other words, in a facial challenge, the Court “determine[s] whether the asserted jurisdictional basis is patently meritless by looking to the face of the complaint, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Biscanin v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 407 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).

         II. ELEVENTH ...


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.