Holmes v. Fletcher

1

Stephan Nicholas Holmes, Plaintiff, v. Bob Fletcher et al., Defendants.

CIVIL No. 22-cv-2985 (PJS/DJF)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

April 14, 2023

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

Dulce J. Foster, nited States Magistrate Judge.

This is a pro se civil rights case brought by Plaintiff Stephen Nicholas Holmes, who is currently an inmate at the Oak Park Heights Minnesota Correctional Facility in Stillwater Minnesota. In broad strokes, Mr. Holmes alleges he was subjected to excessive force during an incident on July 18 2021, when an unidentified Ramsey County Correctional Officer maced Mr. Holmes, threw him out of his wheelchair to the ground, and put weight on his lower back where he had open wounds due to a recent surgery.

Mr Holmes filed his Complaint (ECF No. 1) and application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”) (ECF No. 2) on November 28, 2022. In the time since then, Mr. Holmes filed: (1) a First Amended Complaint (“First Amended Complaint”) (ECF No. 5); (2) two submissions purporting to add claims to his action on December 16 and 21, 2022 (ECF Nos. 6, 7); and (3) an Amended Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Second Amended Complaint”) (ECF No. 11). As discussed below, the Court construes the allegations asserted in the original Complaint and the various amendments to it (ECF Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7 and 11) collectively as the operative pleading in this matter (“Operative Complaint”) and now reviews the Operative Complaint and Mr. Holmes' IFP application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Additionally, Mr. Holmes has filed: (1) a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (“Motion to Appoint”) (ECF No. 4); (2) a motion seeking service of the summons upon Defendants (“Motion to Serve”) (ECF No. 14); and (3) a motion asking the Court to hold all hearings in this matter via “Zoom/telephone” (“Motion for Remote Hearings”) (ECF No. 16).

For the reasons given below, the Court recommends dismissing the Operative Complaint in part, allowing a portion of the claims to proceed, and granting Mr. Holmes' IFP Application. With respect to Mr. Holmes' other pending motions, the Court denies the Motion to Appoint,^[1]denies the Motion to Serve as moot, and denies the Motion for Remote Hearings.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Mr. Holmes' Filings

The original Complaint asserts constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and names four Defendants: (1) Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher;^[2] (2) a “John Doe” Defendant, described as the Ramsey County corrections officer who allegedly accosted Holmes; (3) Ramsey County; and (4) the Ramsey County Adult Detention Center (“Ramsey County ADC”)^[3] (See id. at 1, 7; see also ECF No. 11 at 7.) Mr. Holmes submitted an IFP Application alongside his Complaint (ECF No. 2). On December 5, 2022, the Court ordered Mr. Holmes to pay his initial partial filing fee (“December 2022 Order”) (ECF No. 3 at 3). A footnote in the December 2022 Order warned Mr. Holmes that “he should strongly consider filing a one-page addendum to the complaint specifying the capacity in which he is suing [the individual] defendants.” (Id. at 3 n.2.)

The Court next received a series of filings from Mr. Holmes, including:

• The Motion to Appoint, filed December 7, 2022, which asks the Court to appoint counsel for Mr. Holmes in this action (ECF No. 4).

• The First Amended Complaint filed December 15, 2022 (ECF No. 5). The First Amended Complaint adds several Defendants, specifically, various “John Doe” Defendants identified as corrections officers who interacted with Mr. Holmes after the altercation discussed in the original Complaint. (See id. At 4-5, 9-10.)

• A document titled “Amendment Complaint” filed December 16, 2022 (ECF No. 6). This document indicates Mr. Holmes intends to sue the first John Doe Defendant and Bob Fletcher in both their individual and official capacities. (See id.)

• Another document titled “Amended Complaint” filed December 21, 2022 (ECF No. 7). This document states that Mr. Holmes intends to bring claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, 327-78 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 29 and 42 U.S.C.) (“ADA”), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93112, 87 Stat. 355, 355-94 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 29 U.S.C.), in addition to his section 1983 claims.

• The Second Amended Complaint filed January 20, 2023 (ECF No. 11). This document reiterates many-but not all-of the allegations in Mr. Holmes' prior pleadings and adds that he intends to sue all individual defendants, including six “John Doe” Defendants, in both their individual and official capacities. (See id. At 7.)

• The Motion to Serve filed March 27, 2023 (ECF No. 14), which asks the Court to serve Defendants with summonses (and presumably the Operative Complaint). (See ECF No. 14 at 1.)

• The Motion for Remote Hearings filed March 27, 2023 (ECF No. 16), which asks the Court to have all hearings take place over the telephone or through Zoom. (See ECF No. 16 at 1.)

B. Mr. Holmes' Claims

Mr. Homes alleges that on July 18, 2021, he was sitting in his wheelchair and using the phone in Unit 1B at the Ramsey County ADC. (ECF No. 5 at 4.) According to the allegations, John Doe #1 approached Mr. Homes and told him his phone time was up. (Id.) Mr. Holmes asked for a few additional minutes, which John Doe #1 denied-stating he would mace Mr. Holmes if Mr. Holmes did not get off the phone immediately. (Id.) Mr. Holmes told John Doe #1 he could not do that, asked him to call the sergeant, and continued talking on the phone. (Id.) John Doe #1 then maced Mr. Holmes for what felt like 15 seconds, then grabbed Mr. Holmes from the back of his wheelchair and slammed him onto his stomach onto the floor. (Id. at 5.) In doing so, John Doe #1 dropped all of his weight on Mr. Holmes' lower back, where Mr. Holmes had an open wound from two emergency decompression surgeries to his L4 and L5 discs 47 days prior. (Id. at 4-5.)

Mr. Holmes further alleges that at some point during the altercation, or shortly thereafter, John Does #2-6 came running into the room. (ECF No. 11 at 4.) Mr. Holmes heard someone screaming “get off him, watch his back,” and felt hands starting to touch him and lift him off the floor. (Id.) John Does #2-6 placed Mr. Holmes in his wheelchair, handcuffed him, and brought him to the “seg” unit. (Id.) In the seg unit, John Does #2-6 placed Mr. Holmes in a cell on the bed, with his hands still cuffed behind his back, and left him in the cell in that handcuffed position. (Id.) Mr. Holmes could not see because of the mace burning him. He attempted to get up to press the medical help button but fell in the process. (Id.) At that point, John Does #2-6 came back to the cell and called a nurse. (Id.) The nurse examined Mr. Holmes and concluded he needed to go to the emergency room. (Id.) He went to the emergency room and was hospitalized overnight at Regions Hospital. (ECF No. 5 at 5.)

Mr. Holmes does not allege Sheriff Bob Fletcher had any direct involvement in the incident underlying his claims. Instead, Mr. Holmes alleges Sheriff Fletcher failed to properly train and supervise his officers. (ECF No. 11 at 6.) He asserts these failures resulted in a custom of excessive force and cover-ups, retaliation for reporting instances of excessive force, and mental abuse by the officers. (Id. at 6.)

The Court construes the Operative Complaint as raising the following claims against all Defendants: (1) an ADA claim; (2) a Rehabilitation Act claim; and (3) Section 1983 claims pursuant to the Fourth, Eighth, Fourteenth and Eighteenth Amendments.^[4] (See ECF No. 1 at 6-7; ECF No. 5 at 5; ECF No. 6 at 1-2; ECF No. 7 at 1; ECF No. 11 at 1.) Mr. Holmes raises his claims against all individual Defendants in both their individual and official capacities. (See ECF No. 11 at 7.) He seeks $400,000 in compensatory damages (for “pain and suffering”) and $600,000 in punitive damages. (ECF No. 11 at 8.) He also asks for an injunction requiring Ramsey County to “put in a new system to oversee use of force as well as training of dealing with people with disabilities.” (Id.)

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

Mr. Holmes submitted an IFP Application in lieu of paying the applicable filing fee. The IFP Application indicates Mr. Holmes is financially eligible to proceed IFP. But under the federal statute governing IFP proceedings, “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss [an IFP] case at any time if the court determines that .. the action ... fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted ....” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While the statute describes dismissal of an entire “case,” courts in this District often rely on section 1915(e)(2) to dismiss portions of cases as well. See, e.g., Bishop v. Swanson, No. 12-cv-0135-KMM-DTS, 2023 WL 1786468, at *4 (D. Minn. Jan. 24, 2023) (citing cases), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 2523902 (D. Minn. Mar. 15, 2023); Perkins v. Daniels, No. 19-cv-2663-SRN-ECW, 2020 WL 6121268, at *2 (D. Minn. July 13, 2020) (same), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 5495229 (D. Minn. Sept. 11, 2020).

When determining whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, a court must accept the complaint's factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See e.g., Varga v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, 764 F.3d 833, 836 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing Loftness Specialized Farm Equip., Inc. v. Twiestmeyer, 742 F.3d 845, 854 (8th Cir. 2014)). A complaint's factual allegations need not be detailed but must “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)...