Beaulieu, et al. v. Ludeman, et al., No. 11-1845 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CasePatients, civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP), brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against DHS officials and DOC officials, alleging that various MSOP policies and practices relating to Patients' conditions of confinement were unconstitutional. The district court granted summary judgment to DHS officials and DOC officials on all of Patients' claims and Patients appealed, raising ten assertions of error. The court rejected Patients' claims and affirmed the summary judgment.
Court Description: Civil case - Civil Rights. In this suit challenging various practices and policies at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, the district court did not err in finding that the record did not establish that two of the plaintiffs were transferred to the Annex portion of the facility in retaliation for filing suits against defendants; record did not support claim that plaintiff Beaulieu was transferred for retaliatory purposes; unclothed full body search policy was not unreasonable; policy of using full restraints for transporting patients was reasonable and a proper exercise of officials' professional judgment; policy limiting size of TVs patients could keep in their rooms was justified by patient safety and facility security concerns; mail policy upheld; telephone policy does not violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights; challenges to double-bunking, shower arrangements and bathroom sanitation rejected; limits on access to legal research and writing computers did not impact plaintiffs' property or liberty interests.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.