United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Jamar D. Henry, Plaintiff,
Lieutenant Gravdal, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BRISBOIS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge pursuant to a referral for report and recommendation in
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Rule 72.1, and upon Defendants Lieutenant Gravdal,
Captain Lee, Correctional Officer J. Hanson, and Correctional
Officer Weber's joint Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 28].
reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that
Defendants' joint Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 28], be
BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
Jamar D. Henry is currently incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan. (Boldt Dec.,
[Docket No. 30], 1). From June 19, 2012, to August 17, 2016,
however, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota.
(Id. at 2). Plaintiff alleges that from April 11,
2016, to April 14, 2016, he was placed into a “dry
cell” by Defendant Lieutenant Gravdal as part of an
ongoing investigation; it appears from the record now before
the Court that the intent was to determine whether Plaintiff
had drugs in his stomach. (Amend. Compl., [Docket No. 5], 8).
Plaintiff contends that his treatment while in the dry cell
violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and
unusual punishment in multiple ways, as he was not provided
with water; he was not permitted to shower, brush his teeth,
or wash his hands; he was “forced to handle his feces
and urine without gloves”; he was “forced to sit
on a hard small plastic pot as a make shift toilet”;
and Plaintiff was kept in the dry cell by Defendant Gravdal
and Defendant Captain Lee even after x-rays failed to
establish the presence of drugs in his system.
(Id.). Plaintiff asserts that as a result, he
suffered “great emotional distress, ” as well as,
severe constipation and “a [hemorrhoidal] flare
up.” (Id.). In addition, Plaintiff contends
that Defendant Correctional Officer J. Hanson and Defendant
Correctional Officer Weber violated his Fifth Amendment
protections against self-incrimination by repeatedly
questioning him after Plaintiff invoked that right.
(Id. at 8-9). Finally, Plaintiff alleges that in May
2015, he was held in administrative detention “without
seeing the DHO for over 100 days.” (Id. at 9).
initiated the present case by filing his Complaint in this
Court on March 14, 2017. [Docket No. 1]. On April 14, 2017,
in accordance with this Court's direction, Plaintiff
filed the operative Amended Complaint. [Docket No. 5]. He
named as Defendants Lieutenant Gravdal, Captain Lee,
Correctional Officer J. Hanson, and Correctional Officer
Weber. (Id. at 1, 7). In the portion of the form
Amended Complaint entitled “Relief, ” which
instructs the Plaintiff to “[s]tate briefly and exactly
what you want the Court to do for you, ” Plaintiff
wrote: “The entry of a judgment order against the
Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of
$50, 000.00.” (Id. at 5).
November 13, 2017, Defendants filed the joint Motion to
Dismiss, [Docket No. 28], which is presently before the
Court. Therein, Defendants argue that the Court should
dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint because Plaintiff
has failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies
prior to filing the present lawsuit. (Mem. in Supp., [Docket
No. 29], 1).
alternative, Defendants contend that to the extent that
Plaintiff brings claims against them in their official
capacities, such claims must be dismissed because Defendants
enjoy sovereign immunity. (Id. at 14). Defendants
argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on
Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment claims, Defendant Lee should
be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to allege
sufficient personal involvement in the alleged constitutional
violations, and Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment claims fail
as a matter of law. (Id. at 15-16). Finally,
Defendants argue that to the extent that Plaintiff is raising
a procedural due process challenge to his 100-day
administrative detention, he has failed to do so as a matter
of law. (Id. at 18).
December 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Response to
Defendants' joint Motion to Dismiss. [Docket No. 35].
Plaintiff asserts that he exhausted his administrative
remedies as required, that he adequately pled Defendant
Lee's personal involvement, and that Defendants are not
entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 2-4).
Plaintiff also “concedes that his official claims must
be dismissed, ” (Id. at 2); he concedes that
his “Fifth Amendment privilege against
self-incrimination claim [sic] was not violated as a
matter of law, ” (Id. at 4); and he
“concedes as to the Defendants' Due Process rights
contention and waives the same at this time, ”
(Id. at 4 n.2).
December 15, 2017, Defendants filed their Reply to
Plaintiff's Response. [Docket No. 37]. Defendants largely
dedicated their Reply to addressing Plaintiff's arguments
regarding Defendant Lee's personal involvement.
January 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File
Supplemental Reply/Surreply. [Docket No. 41]. Considering its
duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally and the fact that
Plaintiff's Motion contained his surreply argument, the
undersigned granted the Motion and accepted it as
Plaintiff's Surreply. (Order, [Docket No. 43], 2).
Plaintiff's Surreply consists of certain medical records
Plaintiff wishes the Court to consider in determining whether
to grant the pending Motion to Dismiss. (See,
Exhibit, [Docket No. 42]). The Court then took the matter
under advisement upon the parties' written submissions.
already set forth above, Defendants make multiple arguments
as to why the Court should dismiss the present case. However,
the undersigned need not review all of those arguments or
address their merits, as there is a more direct path to
resolution of the present Motion.
well-established that “in order to sue a public
official in his or her individual capacity, a plaintiff must
expressly and unambiguously state so in the pleadings,
otherwise, it will be assumed that the defendant is sued only
in his or her official capacity.” Johnson v.
Outboard Marine Corp., 172 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir.
1999). See, also, e.g.,
Miskovich v. Independent School Dist. 318, 226
F.Supp.2d 990, 1012 (D. Minn. 2002); Goldberg v.
McCormick, No. 17-cv-919 (PAM/LIB), 2018 ...