902 N.W.2d 92
Minn. Ct. App.2017Background
- Joseph Anthony Favors is civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) and sued MSOP/MDHS employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Minn. Stat. § 144.651 for denying his request for a cassette recorder.
- Respondents moved to dismiss under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) for failure to state a claim, arguing § 144.651 creates no private right and the constitutional claim lacked merit.
- The district court dismissed Favors’s complaint with prejudice; Favors appealed.
- The court reviewed the dismissal de novo, accepting pleaded facts and construing inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.
- The court analyzed (1) whether Minn. Stat. § 144.651 (the Minnesota Patients’ Bill of Rights) implies a private cause of action and (2) whether Favors stated a cognizable substantive due-process claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minn. Stat. § 144.651 creates a private cause of action | Favors: § 144.651 protects patients (including civilly committed inpatients) and thus permits private enforcement for violations (e.g., denial of a recorder) | Respondents: Statute provides its own grievance procedure and enforcement by the Commissioner of Health; legislature did not intend a private right | No private cause of action; statute’s language, grievance process, and exclusive enforcement by the Commissioner weigh against implying a remedy |
| Whether denial of a cassette recorder states a substantive due-process claim | Favors: denial was a constitutional deprivation of due process | Respondents: Conduct does not meet the "shocks-the-conscience" standard; no extreme government misconduct alleged | Dismissed: complaint fails to allege conduct so egregious as to shock the conscience; no viable substantive due-process claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Graphic Commc’ns Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund A v. CVS Caremark Corp., 850 N.W.2d 682 (Minn. 2014) (standard for de novo review of dismissal under Rule 12.02(e))
- Finn v. All. Bank, 860 N.W.2d 638 (Minn. 2015) (pleaded facts accepted as true; dismissal proper if no set of facts could support relief)
- Becker v. Mayo Found., 737 N.W.2d 200 (Minn. 2007) (private cause of action exists only if statutory language is explicit or clear implication supports one)
- Flour Exch. Bldg. Corp. v. State, 524 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. App. 1994) (three-factor test for implying a private remedy under Minnesota law)
- Mumm v. Mornson, 708 N.W.2d 475 (Minn. 2006) ("shocks-the-conscience" standard for substantive due-process claims)
- State v. Hill, 871 N.W.2d 900 (Minn. 2015) (interpretation of substantive due process protecting against arbitrary government action)
- Monahan v. Dorchester Counseling Ctr., Inc., 961 F.2d 987 (1st Cir. 1992) (federal courts declined to recognize private causes of action under patient-rights statutes)
- Hatch v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 609 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. App. 2000) (discussing exclusive enforcement authority under Minnesota patient-protection provisions)