Opinion
A23-0178
07-20-2023
Joseph Anthony Favors, Appellant, v. Samantha Ansz, Respondent, Jodi Harpstead, Respondent, Nancy Johnston, Respondent, Erik Lemke, Respondent.
Filed Date: July 31, 2023
Nicollet County District Court File No. 52-CV-21-284
Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Slieter, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Denise Reilly, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Joseph Anthony Favors is indeterminately committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). Favors participated in MSOP's vocational work program (the VWP), but he was suspended from the VWP based on his poor progress in treatment. Favors filed a complaint asserting that respondents committed negligence and violated his constitutional rights by suspending him from the VWP. Respondents moved to dismiss, which the district court granted. Favors appeals.
2. A pleading may be dismissed for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). We review de novo whether a complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief. Hansen v. U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 934 N.W.2d 319, 325 (Minn. 2019). We will uphold a dismissal order "if it appears to a certainty that no facts, which could be introduced consistent with the pleading, exist which would support granting the relief demanded." Finn v. All. Bank, 860 N.W.2d 638, 653 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).
3. Favors alleges respondents acted negligently by suspending him from the VWP. "Negligence is the failure to exercise the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances." Doe 169 v. Brandon, 845 N.W.2d 174, 177 (Minn. 2014). Negligence consists of "four elements necessary for recovery: (1) the existence of a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury, and (4) the breach of that duty being the proximate cause of the injury." Louis v. Louis, 636 N.W.2d 314, 318 (Minn. 2001). When asserting a negligence claim, "[t]he existence of a duty of care is a threshold question because a defendant cannot breach a nonexistent duty." Abel v. Abbott Nw. Hosp., 947 N.W.2d 58, 77 (Minn. 2020) (quotation omitted). The existence of a duty is a question of law that we review de novo. Domagala v. Rolland, 805 N.W.2d 14, 22 (Minn. 2011).
4. Favors's negligence claims fails as a matter of law because respondents did not have a legal duty to allow Favors to participate in the VWP. Minnesota statute provides that the VWP "is an extension of therapeutic treatment in order for civilly committed sex offenders to learn valuable work skills and work habits while contributing to their cost of care." Minn. Stat. § 246B.05, subd. 1 (2022). Respondents did not have a legal duty to permit Favors to continue participating in the VWP. Because Favors's negligence claims fail at this "threshold question," dismissal is appropriate. Abel, 947 N.W.2d at 77.
5. Favors also alleges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) that respondents violated his constitutional rights by suspending him from the VWP. We review constitutional issues de novo. Star Trib. Co. v. Univ. of Minn. Bd. of Regents, 683 N.W.2d 274, 283 (Minn. 2004). We also review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep't, 691 N.W.2d 824, 826 (Minn. 2005). Section 1983 "provides a cause of action against a state official who, acting under color of law, deprives a person of a federal constitutional or statutory right." Simmons v. Fabian, 743 N.W.2d 281, 284-85 (Minn.App. 2007) (citation omitted). To prevail on a section 1983 claim, Favors must establish that (1) he was deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
6. The purpose of the VWP is to "establish vocational activities for sex offender treatment" for individuals civilly committed to the MSOP. Minn. Stat. § 246B.06, subd. 1(a) (2022). Thus, Minnesota law is clear that "[c]ivilly committed sex offenders participating in the [VWP] are not employees of [MSOP], the Department of Human Services, or the state." Minn. Stat. § 246B.06, subd. 7 (2022); see also Gamble v. Minnesota State-Operated Servs., 32 F.4th 666, 670 (8th Cir. 2022) (holding that civil detainees in MSOP, who participated in the VWP, were not state employees).
7. In light of this caselaw, we conclude that a civilly-committed person does not have a federal constitutional or statutory right to participate in the VWP. Nor is there any authority suggesting that altering an individual's participation in the VWP qualifies as a constitutional injury. Because Favors cannot establish that he was deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, his constitutional claims fail.
8. Favors also argues the district court erred by determining that respondents are entitled to qualified immunity. Based on our conclusion that the district court did not err by dismissing Favors's claims, we do not reach this issue.
9. Favors raises several additional arguments on appeal related to bias, wage loss, and other issues. These arguments are forfeited for lack of legal support or because Favors failed to present them to the district court. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (declining to review an issue that was not properly preserved in district court); State v. Bursch, 905 N.W.2d 884, 889 (Minn.App. 2017) ("Arguments are forfeited if they are presented in a summary and conclusory form, do not cite to applicable law, and fail to analyze the law when claiming that errors of law occurred.").
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.