Meranelli v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Meranelli v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Cherrity Honesty-Alexis Meranelli also Civ. No. 23-848 (JWB/TNL)
known as Eric M. Sorenson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Minnesota Department of Human Services,
DHS, Minnesota Sex Offender Program,
MSOP, State Operated Services, SOS, and
Jodi Harpstead, Commissioner, DHS, Nancy
A. Johnston, CEO, MSOP, Terrance K.
Kneisel, “Terry”; Facility Director, MSOP,
Ann Linkert, Assistant Facility Director,
MSOP, Mitchel L. Rhodes, MSOP, Corey R. ORDER ACCEPTING
Drabelis, MSOP, Alexandra R. Kaufman, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MSOP, Matthew D. Barton, MSOP, Ryan J. OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Fahland, MSOP, Gary M. Ankarlo, MSOP,
Tina L. Olson, MSOP, Amy N. Farmer,
MSOP, Kayla R. Taylor, MSOP, Timothy S.
Carman, MSOP, Tammy L. Shelton, MSOP,
Austin M. Preston, MSOP, Eric J. Woytasek,
MSOP, Johnathan C. Mader, MSOP, Jacob L
Adams, MSOP, Brittany L. Monette, MSOP,
Andrea Kosloski, MSOP, Luke L. Wilson,
MSOP, Daniel Werner, MSOP, Anthony M.
Herring, MSOP, Trevor J. Rychlak, MSOP,
Sherry M. Webb, Kathleen M. Newhouse,
MSOP, Laura D. Bainbridge, MSOP, John S.
Barry, MSOP, Kaitlyn L. Marvel, MSOP,
William J. Goman, MSOP, Jena E. Murray,
MSOP, Andrea Youngs, MSOP, Benjamin B
Wallace, MSOP, Jane Does, Unknown
Individuals, and John Does, Unknown
Individuals, in their individual and official
capacities,
Defendants.
________________________________________________________________________
Cherrity Honesty-Alexis Meranelli, pro se Plaintiff.
Jacqueline Clayton, Esq., Minnesota Attorney General's Office, counsel for Defendants.
United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) on January 11, 2024. (Doc. No. 49.) No objections were filed
to that R&R in the time permitted, and in the absence of timely objections, the R&R is
reviewed for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795
(8th Cir. 1996). Upon review of the R&R, no clear error is found.
Plaintiff Cherrity Honesty-Alexis Meranelli did, however, file objections on
February 9, 2024, outside the 14-day objection period concluding on January 25, 2024.
(Doc. No. 50.) Although untimely objections need not be considered, and although
Meranelli’s objections lack merit, they are briefly addressed to provide clarity and
resolution to the parties.
Meranelli first objects to dismissal of any claims in the R&R with prejudice,
asserting that dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) is meant to be
without prejudice. However, those claims dismissed with prejudice—against the
Minnesota Sex Offender Program (“MSOP”), State Operated Services (“SOS”), and
official-capacity Defendants for damages—are dismissed due to the parties’ Eleventh
Amendment immunity. As the claims are constitutionally barred, it is appropriate to
foreclose the possibility of re-filing where no modification to the pleadings could alter
the result. See Riemers v. North Dakota, 185 F. App’x 551, 552(8th Cir. 2006) (citing Tex. Cmty. Bank v. Mo. Dep’t of Soc. Serv.,232 F.3d 942, 943
(8th Cir. 2000). Dismissal
with prejudice is appropriate and this objection is overruled.
Second, Meranelli objects to the Magistrate Judge considering only some of her
submitted materials in deciding the motion to dismiss. Motions to dismiss are decided
only on the Complaint and those materials “necessarily embraced by the pleadings,”
Hughes v. City of Cedar Rapids, 840 F.3d 987, 998(8th Cir. 2016)—subject to the “complete discretion” of the court. Stahl v. United States Dep’t of Agric.,327 F.3d 697
,
701 (8th Cir. 2003); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). The Magistrate Judge considered
those materials explicitly referenced by the pleadings and not those which might convert
the motion to a summary judgment motion. That review was proper, and this objection is
overruled.
Third, Meranelli objects to the R&R’s failure-to-protect analysis. She asserts that
the eventual assault requires a finding of a substantial risk of serious harm and that the
standard for deliberate indifference is entirely objective. The fact of the assault, however,
does not inform the risk faced prior to the assault; failure-to-protect contemplates the
ability to anticipate and prevent the harm. See Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 446–47
(8th Cir. 2010) (considering the circumstances known to staff before a plaintiff was
assaulted by his roommate, particularly the assailant’s historical conduct). Meranelli’s
allegations of those circumstances known to staff in advance are insufficient to establish
a substantial risk of serious harm. Lack of a substantial risk of serious harm is fatal to the
claim; accordingly, this objection is overruled.
Fourth, Meranelli objects that it is improper to deny a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction on a motion to dismiss. Meranelli cites inapposite law—
punitive damage requests are distinct from pre-trial requests such as TROs and
preliminary injunctions. The request was made in her Complaint and nothing precludes a
judge from addressing one motion before another, or addressing both together.
Regardless, the Magistrate Judge analyzed the appropriate factors and the analysis was
supported. This objection is overruled.
Lastly, Meranelli objects that the R&R did not allow her to amend her Complaint.
Given the presence of incurable jurisdictional issues, dismissal is appropriate because it
appears amendment would be futile on many claims. Furthermore, allowing an amended
pleading is entirely discretionary, particularly absent submission of a proposed amended
pleading by the plaintiff. See Dudek v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 295 F.3d 875, 880(8th Cir. 2002). This objection is overruled.
ORDER
Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The January 11, 2024 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 49) is
ACCEPTED;
2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 26) is
GRANTED IN PART as follows:
a. Plaintiff Cherrity Honesty-Alexis Meranelli’s claims against
Defendants Minnesota Sex Offender Program and State Operated Services are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and the
Eleventh Amendment;
b. Plaintiff’s claims for damages against official-capacity Defendants
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and
the Eleventh Amendment;
c. Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against Defendants Minnesota
Department of Human Services, Minnesota Sex Offender Program, State Operated
Services, and official-capacity Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDCE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted;
d. Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against individual-capacity
Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6);
e. Plaintiff’s requests for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction are DENIED;
f. Plaintiff’s remaining claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: February 15, 2024 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell
JERRY W. BLACKWELL
United States District Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Cherrity Honesty-Alexis Meranelli also Civ. No. 23-848 (JWB/TNL)
known as Eric M. Sorenson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Minnesota Department of Human Services,
DHS, Minnesota Sex Offender Program,
MSOP, State Operated Services, SOS, and
Jodi Harpstead, Commissioner, DHS, Nancy
A. Johnston, CEO, MSOP, Terrance K.
Kneisel, “Terry”; Facility Director, MSOP,
Ann Linkert, Assistant Facility Director,
MSOP, Mitchel L. Rhodes, MSOP, Corey R. ORDER ACCEPTING
Drabelis, MSOP, Alexandra R. Kaufman, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MSOP, Matthew D. Barton, MSOP, Ryan J. OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Fahland, MSOP, Gary M. Ankarlo, MSOP,
Tina L. Olson, MSOP, Amy N. Farmer,
MSOP, Kayla R. Taylor, MSOP, Timothy S.
Carman, MSOP, Tammy L. Shelton, MSOP,
Austin M. Preston, MSOP, Eric J. Woytasek,
MSOP, Johnathan C. Mader, MSOP, Jacob L
Adams, MSOP, Brittany L. Monette, MSOP,
Andrea Kosloski, MSOP, Luke L. Wilson,
MSOP, Daniel Werner, MSOP, Anthony M.
Herring, MSOP, Trevor J. Rychlak, MSOP,
Sherry M. Webb, Kathleen M. Newhouse,
MSOP, Laura D. Bainbridge, MSOP, John S.
Barry, MSOP, Kaitlyn L. Marvel, MSOP,
William J. Goman, MSOP, Jena E. Murray,
MSOP, Andrea Youngs, MSOP, Benjamin B
Wallace, MSOP, Jane Does, Unknown
Individuals, and John Does, Unknown
Individuals, in their individual and official
capacities,
Defendants.
________________________________________________________________________
Cherrity Honesty-Alexis Meranelli, pro se Plaintiff.
Jacqueline Clayton, Esq., Minnesota Attorney General's Office, counsel for Defendants.
United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) on January 11, 2024. (Doc. No. 49.) No objections were filed
to that R&R in the time permitted, and in the absence of timely objections, the R&R is
reviewed for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795
(8th Cir. 1996). Upon review of the R&R, no clear error is found.
Plaintiff Cherrity Honesty-Alexis Meranelli did, however, file objections on
February 9, 2024, outside the 14-day objection period concluding on January 25, 2024.
(Doc. No. 50.) Although untimely objections need not be considered, and although
Meranelli’s objections lack merit, they are briefly addressed to provide clarity and
resolution to the parties.
Meranelli first objects to dismissal of any claims in the R&R with prejudice,
asserting that dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) is meant to be
without prejudice. However, those claims dismissed with prejudice—against the
Minnesota Sex Offender Program (“MSOP”), State Operated Services (“SOS”), and
official-capacity Defendants for damages—are dismissed due to the parties’ Eleventh
Amendment immunity. As the claims are constitutionally barred, it is appropriate to
foreclose the possibility of re-filing where no modification to the pleadings could alter
the result. See Riemers v. North Dakota, 185 F. App’x 551, 552(8th Cir. 2006) (citing Tex. Cmty. Bank v. Mo. Dep’t of Soc. Serv.,232 F.3d 942, 943
(8th Cir. 2000). Dismissal
with prejudice is appropriate and this objection is overruled.
Second, Meranelli objects to the Magistrate Judge considering only some of her
submitted materials in deciding the motion to dismiss. Motions to dismiss are decided
only on the Complaint and those materials “necessarily embraced by the pleadings,”
Hughes v. City of Cedar Rapids, 840 F.3d 987, 998(8th Cir. 2016)—subject to the “complete discretion” of the court. Stahl v. United States Dep’t of Agric.,327 F.3d 697
,
701 (8th Cir. 2003); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). The Magistrate Judge considered
those materials explicitly referenced by the pleadings and not those which might convert
the motion to a summary judgment motion. That review was proper, and this objection is
overruled.
Third, Meranelli objects to the R&R’s failure-to-protect analysis. She asserts that
the eventual assault requires a finding of a substantial risk of serious harm and that the
standard for deliberate indifference is entirely objective. The fact of the assault, however,
does not inform the risk faced prior to the assault; failure-to-protect contemplates the
ability to anticipate and prevent the harm. See Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 446–47
(8th Cir. 2010) (considering the circumstances known to staff before a plaintiff was
assaulted by his roommate, particularly the assailant’s historical conduct). Meranelli’s
allegations of those circumstances known to staff in advance are insufficient to establish
a substantial risk of serious harm. Lack of a substantial risk of serious harm is fatal to the
claim; accordingly, this objection is overruled.
Fourth, Meranelli objects that it is improper to deny a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction on a motion to dismiss. Meranelli cites inapposite law—
punitive damage requests are distinct from pre-trial requests such as TROs and
preliminary injunctions. The request was made in her Complaint and nothing precludes a
judge from addressing one motion before another, or addressing both together.
Regardless, the Magistrate Judge analyzed the appropriate factors and the analysis was
supported. This objection is overruled.
Lastly, Meranelli objects that the R&R did not allow her to amend her Complaint.
Given the presence of incurable jurisdictional issues, dismissal is appropriate because it
appears amendment would be futile on many claims. Furthermore, allowing an amended
pleading is entirely discretionary, particularly absent submission of a proposed amended
pleading by the plaintiff. See Dudek v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 295 F.3d 875, 880(8th Cir. 2002). This objection is overruled.
ORDER
Based on the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, and on all the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The January 11, 2024 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 49) is
ACCEPTED;
2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 26) is
GRANTED IN PART as follows:
a. Plaintiff Cherrity Honesty-Alexis Meranelli’s claims against
Defendants Minnesota Sex Offender Program and State Operated Services are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and the
Eleventh Amendment;
b. Plaintiff’s claims for damages against official-capacity Defendants
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and
the Eleventh Amendment;
c. Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against Defendants Minnesota
Department of Human Services, Minnesota Sex Offender Program, State Operated
Services, and official-capacity Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDCE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted;
d. Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against individual-capacity
Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6);
e. Plaintiff’s requests for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction are DENIED;
f. Plaintiff’s remaining claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: February 15, 2024 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell
JERRY W. BLACKWELL
United States District Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown