United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Flores, Pro Se.
MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge
for a ruling on Plaintiff Mauro Flores'
(“Flores”) Objections [Docket No. 47] to
Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez's January 7, 2019
Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 43]
(“R&R”). In the R&R, Judge Menendez
recommends granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket
No. 33]. The Court received Flores' Objections on January
29, 2019, after having issued an Order Adopting the R&R
[Docket No. 45] on January 25, 2019 and entering Judgment
[Docket No. 46] for Defendants on January 29, 2019. The Court
will consider Flores' Objections to be timely and has
reviewed them on their merits. For the reasons stated below,
Flores' Objections are overruled, the Order Adopting the
R&R is amended to specify that Flores' federal claims
are dismissed with prejudice, and the Judgment is also
amended to specify that Flores' federal claims are
dismissed with prejudice.
background is set forth in the R&R and is incorporated by
reference. Briefly, Flores is a civilly committed detainee at
the Minnesota Sex Offender Program in Moose Lake, Minnesota
(“MSOP”). Am. Compl. [Docket No. 15, Attach. 1]
¶ 3. Defendants are MSOP employees. Id.
¶¶ 4-9. Flores filed this lawsuit alleging
violations of his federal constitutional rights under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and asserting supplemental tort claims
under state law. Flores alleges that Defendants violated the
First and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by
placing him in a small behavioral unit that holds no more
than 4 people, not permitting him to leave the unit for over
three weeks, not holding a hearing on his placement, and
denying him the right to practice his religion. Id.
September 7, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
Flores' original complaint. Mot. Dism. [Docket No. 8].
Flores filed a response in opposition and sought leave to
amend the complaint. Pl.'s Resp. [Docket No. 18]; Mot.
Leave Amend [Docket No. 15]. Flores was permitted to amend
his complaint as a matter of course under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), and Defendants' September
2016 motion to dismiss was denied as moot.
Amended Complaint asserts federal claims for violation of his
right to substantive and procedural due process (Counts I and
II), violation of his right to free exercise of religion
(Count III), deliberate indifference to his medical needs
(Count IV), failure to protect from foreseeable harm (Count
V), and failure to train and supervise employees (Count VI).
Flores also asserts state law claims for intentional and
negligent infliction of emotional distress (Counts VII and
VIII). Id. ¶¶ 38-43.
March 22, 2017, Defendants filed this motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint. Defendants argued in part that Flores had
not alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for
violations of the U.S. Constitution. For example, the Amended
Complaint's Free Exercise claim does not identify his
religion or specify how Flores was denied reasonable
opportunities to exercise his religion. The deliberate
indifference claim states that Defendants failed to provide
Flores with “adequate mental health care, ” but
does not allege any facts indicating that Defendants
prevented him from receiving treatment. Def.'s Mem. Supp.
Mot. Dism. [Docket No. 36] at 16 (quoting Am. Compl. ¶
30). The failure to protect claim does not allege any
involvement by Defendants in any unconstitutional act.
Id. at 16. Flores did not respond to the Motion and
did not move to amend the Amended Complaint.
30, 2017, three months after Defendants' second motion to
dismiss was filed but before any decision was issued, this
case was stayed pending further proceedings in the related
case of Karsjens v. Piper, Civ. No. 11-3659
(DWF/TNL) (D. Minn.). See Stay Order [Docket No.
40]. The stay was lifted on October 22, 2018. See
Order Lifting Stay [Docket No. 42].
January 7, 2019, Judge Menendez issued the R&R
recommending that Defendants' motion be granted and the
Amended Complaint be dismissed. The R&R recommended
dismissing all claims and specified that the state law claims
should be dismissed without prejudice. After waiting 18 days
with no objections to the R&R, the R&R was adopted
and Judgment was entered for Defendants. Hours after entering
the Judgment, the Court received Flores' Objections. The
Court now considers the Objections to determine whether they
warrant amending or vacating the Order Adopting the R&R
or the Judgment.
Standard of Review
party “may file and serve specific written objections
to a magistrate judge's proposed findings and
recommendations.” D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1). In
reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation,
the district court “shall make a de novo determination
of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also
D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). A district judge ...