Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hoffert v. Floyd County Central Point of Coordination

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division

January 5, 2015

ROGER JOSEPH HOFFERT, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
FLOYD COUNTY CENTRAL POINT OF COORDINATION, KATHY MONSON, DAVID MUETERTHIES, BOB LINCOLN, BLACK HAWK COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICE and BLACK HAWK COUNTY CENTRAL POINT OF COORDINATION, Defendants.

ORDER

LINDA R. READE, Chief District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

The matters before the court are Defendant David Mueterthies's "Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Mueterthies Motion") (docket no. 35) and Defendants Kathy Monson, Bob Lincoln, Floyd County Central Point of Coordination, Black Hawk County Community Services Office and Black Hawk County Central Point of Coordination's (collectively, "BHC") "Motion for Summary Judgment" ("BHC Motion") (docket no. 36).

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff Roger Joseph Hoffert, Jr. filed an Amended and Substituted Complaint ("Complaint") (docket no. 20), alleging that Mueterthies and BHC violated his civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and unlawfully discriminated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. On October 10, 2014, Mueterthies filed the Mueterthies Motion. On October 14, 2014, BHC filed the BHC Motion. On November 3, 2014, Plaintiff Roger Joseph Hoffert, Jr. filed a Resistance (docket no. 41) to the Mueterthies Motion, and on November 7, 2014, Hoffert filed a Resistance (docket no. 42) to the BHC Motion.[1] On November 10, 2014, both Mueterthies and BHC filed Replies (docket nos. 43 and 44, respectively).

III. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND [2]

Hoffert has been diagnosed with various mental health conditions, including anti-social personality disorder and schizophrenia, and exhibits a history of aggression, assaultive behavior, alcohol usage and drug usage. Complaint (docket no. 20) ¶ 10; Mueterthies's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (docket no. 35-2) ¶ 56; BHC's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (docket no. 36-1) ¶ 6. Hoffert was released from prison on February 8, 2014, whereafter he sought and obtained treatment in the mental health unit of a hospital on multiple occasions. Mueterthies's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (docket no. 35-2) ¶¶ 1, 5; BHC's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (docket no. 36-1) ¶¶ 1, 5. During this treatment, Hoffert expressed interest in placement in a residential facility but then decided that he did not want residential placement. Mueterthies's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (docket no. 35-2) ¶ 60; BHC's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (docket no. 36-1) ¶ 5. Instead, Hoffert wanted to be discharged from the hospital so that he could find an apartment. Mueterthies's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (docket no. 35-2) ¶ 62. On April 1, 2014, Hoffert left the hospital against medical advice. Id. ¶ 63. Prior to leaving the hospital, Hoffert had not completed the necessary intake process to be considered for placement in a residential program. BHC's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (docket no. 36-1) ¶ 7. However, even if he had completed the intake process, it would have been difficult to place Hoffert in a residential program given his history of violence and substance abuse. Mueterthies's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (docket no. 35-2) ¶¶ 52-59; BHC's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (docket no. 36-1) ¶ 9. On April 2, 2014, Hoffert committed a theft and is currently incarcerated for that offense. Mueterthies's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (docket no. 35-2) ¶¶ 2-3; BHC's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (docket no. 36-1) ¶ 1. Hoffert contends that he would not have committed that offense had he been placed in a residential facility after leaving the hospital. Mueterthies's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (docket no. 35-2) ¶ 8.

During the relevant time period, Mueterthies was an employee of Black Hawk-Grundy Mental Health Center, which is a private, nonprofit organization. Mueterthies's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (docket no. 35-2) ¶¶ 16-17. Mueterthies worked in the organization's Homeless Program Outreach to help establish mental health treatment and housing for those who have been released from prison. Mueterthies's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (docket no. 35-2) ¶¶ 18-19. Several counties in Iowa, including Black Hawk County and Floyd County, are members of a joint consortium, County Social Services ("CSS"), that provides mental health and disability services, which sometimes includes funding for, and placement in, residential facilities. BHC Appendix, Volume II (docket no. 36-3) at 5. During the relevant time period, Kathy Monson was employed as a CSS Service Coordinator, and her employment was supervised by Bob Lincoln. BHC Appendix, Volume III (docket no. 36-4) at 61, 66-67.

IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). "A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the outcome of the case." Amini v. City of Minneapolis, 643 F.3d 1068, 1074 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 252 (1986)). "[S]elf-serving allegations and denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact." Anuforo v. Comm'r, 614 F.3d 799, 807 (8th Cir. 2010). "To survive a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must substantiate his allegations with sufficient probative evidence [that] would permit a finding in [his] favor based on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy.'" Barber v. C1 Truck Driver Training, LLC, 656 F.3d 782, 801 (8th Cir. 2011) (alterations in original) (quoting Putman v. Unity Health Sys., 348 F.3d 732, 733-34 (8th Cir. 2003)). The court must view the record "in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party" and afford him all reasonable inferences. Schmidt v. Des Moines Pub. Sch., 655 F.3d 811, 819 (8th Cir. 2011).

For a nonmoving party to properly resist a motion for summary judgment, Local Rule 56(b) provides that:

A response to an individual statement of material fact that is not expressly admitted must be supported by references to those specific pages, paragraphs, or parts of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, exhibits, and affidavits that support the resisting party's refusal to admit the statement, with citations to the appendix containing that part of the record. The failure to respond, with appropriate citations to the appendix, to an individual statement of material fact constitutes an admission of that fact.

LR 56(b). Hoffert has not resisted the Mueterthies Motion or BHC Motion by furnishing evidence, citations or other reasons for resisting it. Hoffert's failure to resist the Mueterthies Motion and BHC Motion constitutes an admission to each of the facts set forth in the Statements of Undisputed Facts in support of the Motions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2)-(4) ("If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may... consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion[, ]... grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials-including the facts considered undisputed-show that the movant is entitled to it[, ] or... issue any other appropriate order.").

V. ANALYSIS

Hoffert claims that Mueterthies and BHC interfered with, and denied his receipt of, funding for placement in the Adult Crisis and Stabilization Center's residential program. Hoffert contends that the interference and denial of funding amounted to a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, Hoffert alleges violations of his right to equal protection, his right to due process and his right to be free from excessive bail. Additionally, Hoffert argues that the interference and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.