Smuda v. Johnston et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
RICHARD ALLEN SMUDA,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY JOHNSTON (MSOP); SHIREEN
GANDHI (DHS); PAUL SNELL (DOC);
BREANNA FUTCHKO (DHS); BECKER
COUNTY; ANOKA STATE HOSPITAL;
STATE OF MINNESOTA; and MINNESOTA
SEX OFFENDERS PROGRAM,
Defendants.
Case No. 24‐CV‐3215 (PJS/DLM)
ORDER
Plaintiff Richard Smuda is a civil detainee in the Minnesota Sex Offender
Program (“MSOP”). He filed this action in August 2024 against defendants State of
Minnesota, Becker County, and various state and county agencies and officials. Smuda
alleged a plethora of constitutional and statutory violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,
1985(3), and 1986, as well as under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.
Smuda sought to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and accordingly his
amended complaint [ECF No. 5] was subject to pre‐service review under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). Following that review, the Court dismissed all claims save two:
(1) Smuda’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against defendant Nancy Johnston, in her official
CASE 0:24-cv-03215-PJS-DLM Doc. 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 5

capacity, for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S.
123 (1908), insofar as that claim is based on allegedly unconstitutional conditions of
confinement and inadequate medical care; and (2) Smuda’s claim under Title II of the
ADA against defendants State of Minnesota, MSOP, and Johnston in her official
capacity, insofar as that claim is based on allegedly unlawful conditions of confinement
and inadequate medical care. ECF No. 21 at 7.
The remaining defendants then filed a motion to dismiss. Magistrate Judge
Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) that recommends
granting the motion in part. In particular, Judge Micko recommends (1) dismissing all
claims against MSOP; (2) dismissing the remaining § 1983 claim against Johnston; and
(3) permitting Smuda’s ADA claims against Minnesota and against Johnston in her
official capacity to proceed.
This matter is before the Court on both sides’ objections to the R&R. The Court
has conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Based
on that review, the Court overrules Smuda’s objection, sustains defendants’ objection,
and grants defendants’ motion to dismiss this case in its entirety.
Smuda’s objection is difficult to follow, but he seems to object to the dismissal of
his § 1983 individual‐capacity claims for damages. Such claims are not properly before
the Court, however, as they were previously dismissed on pre‐service review for failure
-2-
CASE 0:24-cv-03215-PJS-DLM Doc. 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 5

to state a claim.1 See ECF Nos. 12, 21. Smuda seems to imply that the Court dismissed
those claims because he failed to specify that he was suing Johnston in her individual
capacity. Smuda is mistaken. Judge Micko’s previous R&R addressed the individual‐
capacity claims on the merits, explaining that Smuda’s § 1983 claims against Johnston in
her individual capacity fail because Smuda failed to allege that Johnston had any
personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations. ECF No. 12 at 12–13; see
also ECF No. 21 (adopting R&R in part and dismissing individual‐capacity § 1983
claims). Smuda also raises the issue of damages for defendants’ failure to provide him a
CPAP machine, but Judge Micko did not recommend dismissing Smuda’s claim for
damages under the ADA. Smuda’s objection is therefore overruled.
Defendants object to the recommended denial of their motion to dismiss Smuda’s
claim that defendants have refused to provide him with a CPAP machine in violation of
Title II of the ADA. “Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., prohibits qualified
individuals with disabilities from being excluded from participation in or the benefits of
the services, programs, or activities of a public entity.” Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d
850, 857 (8th Cir. 1999). To state a claim under Title II of the ADA, “a plaintiff must
show: 1) he is a person with a disability as defined by statute; 2) he is otherwise
1To the extent Smuda may be objecting to the recommended dismissal of the
§ 1983 claim against Johnston that survived pre‐service review, that claim fails for the
reasons stated in the R&R.
-3-
CASE 0:24-cv-03215-PJS-DLM Doc. 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 5

qualified for the benefit in question; and 3) he was excluded from the benefit due to
discrimination based upon disability.” Id. at 858.
Smuda has adequately alleged that he “is a person with a disability” (sleep
apnea) and that he “is otherwise qualified for the benefit in question” (a CPAP
machine). Id. But, as defendants argue, Smuda has not adequately alleged that “he was
excluded from the benefit due to discrimination based upon disability.” Id. (emphasis
added). Smuda nowhere alleges that defendants took away his CPAP machine because
he has sleep apnea. Instead, he argues that he needs a CPAP machine because he has
sleep apnea and that defendants are failing to provide him adequate care for his sleep
apnea because they are punishing him for refusing to take his medications. ECF No. 5
¶ 16. Such allegations fail to state a claim under the ADA. See Tardif v. City of N.Y., 991
F.3d 394, 405 (2d Cir. 2021) (“At its core, the issue here is not whether Tardif was denied
medical services because she has a disability. Instead, her claim relates solely to whether
she received adequate medical treatment in police custody for her disability, and such a
claim is not cognizable under the ADA.”).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
-4-
CASE 0:24-cv-03215-PJS-DLM Doc. 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 4 of 5

1. 	The Court ADOPTS IN PART and REJECTS IN PART the Report and
Recommendation [ECF No. 56].
2. 	Plaintiff’s objection [ECF Nos. 58–59] is OVERRULED.
3. 	Defendants’ objection [ECF No. 63] is SUSTAINED.
4. 	Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 39] is GRANTED, and plaintiff’s
amended complaint [ECF No. 5] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND
ON THE MERITS.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 23, 2026 	/s/ Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge
United States District Court
-5-
CASE 0:24-cv-03215-PJS-DLM Doc. 67 Filed 03/23/26 Page 5 of 5