Lozoya v. City of Cloquet
| Decision Date | 04 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-cv-0990 (ECT/LIB) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
| Parties | Clarence Lozoya, Plaintiff, v. City of Cloquet; County of Carlton; Scott Beckman, an individual; Carey Ferrell, an individual; and Does 1-25, Defendants. |
Joseph Alan Pull and Andrew D. Parker, Parker Daniels Kibort LLC Minneapolis, MN; and Kenneth Frucht, Geonetta & Frucht LLP, Oakland, CA, attorneys for Plaintiff Clarence Lozoya.
Jessica E. Schwie, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered Minneapolis, MN, attorney for Defendants City of Cloquet and Carey Ferrell.
Vicki A. Hruby and Joseph E. Flynn, Jardine Logan & O'Brien PLLP, Lake Elmo, MN, attorneys for County of Carlton.
After pleading guilty to felony second degree assault in Minnesota state district court and spending two years in prison for that offense, Plaintiff Clarence Lozoya learned that the office of Carlton County Attorney Thomas H. Pertler did not-prior to his guilty plea-disclose evidence that might have impeached his arresting officer, Scott Beckman, had the case gone to trial.[1] In this case brought under 42 U.S.C § 1983 and Minnesota tort law, Lozoya seeks damages he alleges resulted from Defendants' actions relating to the non-disclosure of this impeachment evidence. At the heart of Lozoya's Amended Complaint[2] is his allegation that the failure to provide this impeachment evidence to Lozoya and his attorneys violated the due process principles articulated in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). See generally Am. Compl. [ECF No. 56-1].
Defendants Carlton County, the City of Cloquet, and Carey Farrell have moved to dismiss Lozoya's Amended Complaint-Carlton County under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the City of Cloquet and Carey Ferrell under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c). ECF Nos. 18, 46. The motions will be granted. Contrary to Lozoya's theory, “the Constitution does not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.” United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 633 (2002). This rule is fatal to the theory underlying Lozoya's § 1983 claims. Lozoya's fallback argument that Defendants are bound by the Carlton County Attorney's alleged previous admission of a Brady violation is not persuasive. Adhering to Eighth Circuit guidance, Lozoya's state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice to be adjudicated in Minnesota state court.
I[3]
Lozoya is arrested, pleads guilty, and is sentenced to prison. On December 5, 2016, Lozoya was arrested by City of Cloquet Police Officer Scott Beckman and charged with felony second-degree assault with a firearm and felony fifth-degree assault by Carlton County. Am. Compl. ¶ 10. On January 4, 2017, Lozoya pleaded guilty to felony second-degree assault. Id. ¶ 21; see ECF Nos. 22-1, 22-4. At the plea hearing, Lozoya testified under oath that he was pleading guilty “voluntarily” [ECF No. 22, Ex. E at 6, 7] and agreed that he had “assault[ed] an individual” on December 5, 2016, in Cloquet, Minnesota [id. at 8-9]. Lozoya stated: Id. at 9. Lozoya also testified, “I hit him with a gun, ” and admitted that it was a “real gun.” Id. On March 27, 2017, Lozoya was sentenced to four years in prison for this offense. Am. Compl. ¶ 21. Lozoya does not allege that he was innocent of the charge to which he pleaded guilty.
Prior to Lozoya's arrest, the Carlton County Attorney had learned of Officer Beckman's misconduct in cases other than Lozoya's. On May 2, 2016, Carlton County Attorney Thomas Pertler received information from the City of Cloquet's Police Chief regarding an ongoing investigation into possible misconduct by Officer Beckman “relating to a February 2016 suspicious activity report and subsequent search warrant application.” ECF No. 40-1 ¶ 6; see Am. Compl. ¶ 15. On June 6, 2016, Pertler received the final investigative report, substantiating Beckman's misconduct. See Am. Compl. ¶ 15; ECF No. 40-1 ¶ 7.
County Attorney Pertler had previously acknowledged the constitutional disclosure obligations attending this information but did not disclose the information or any part of it to Lozoya (or anyone else). On June 28, 2016, Pertler sent a letter to the Cloquet Police Chief acknowledging receipt of the final report concerning Beckman's misconduct. See Am. Compl. ¶ 16; ECF No. 40-1 ¶ 8. In his letter, Pertler acknowledged the requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and that failure to comply intentionally or unintentionally with those requirements could lead to dismissal of a criminal case. See Am. Compl. ¶ 16; ECF No. 40-1 ¶¶ 8, 14. Suggesting he believed that disclosure of the information would spread quickly through the local criminal defense bar, Pertler wrote, “I have no reason to believe that once one defense attorney was privy to the knowledge that all of them would know shortly thereafter.” ECF No. 40-1 ¶ 8; see Am. Compl. ¶ 16. Pertler also wrote that he would try to resolve pending cases with a plea agreement, but “potential problems would most likely arise” if matters were set for trial. ECF No. 40-1
¶ 8. Further, Pertler wrote:
With respect to the future prosecutions we certainly would attempt to do the best of our ability but in the event that one or more of the matters got set for trial and disclosure was necessary, as you believe the case to be, that could potentially open my office up to scrutiny from the bench and defense bar with allegations that we were aware of the issue presented but continued to attempt to force through cases anyway. The one thing I certainly would not do, and would hope no one would ever ask me to do, would be to conduct business in a manner that could lend itself to the appearance of impropriety. I must consider our ethical obligations and duties and do not want to be accused of practicing law in a matter that could be perceived as trying to run something through the system knowing that there is potentially exculpatory information to the defendant that is constitutionally required of me to be disclosed.
Id. ¶ 9; see Am. Compl. ¶ 16. The information regarding Beckman's misconduct was not provided to Lozoya prior to his January 4, 2017 guilty plea, though Lozoya's attorney demanded on December 8, 2016, that the County disclose Brady material. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12-13; ECF No. 39-1.
Pertler is informed of the conclusion and outcome of the investigation concerning Officer Beckman but persists in not disclosing this information. In a letter dated March 2, 2017, the Cloquet Police Chief advised Pertler that Officer Beckman's disciplinary inquiry was complete, and that the allegations of misconduct had been sustained. ECF No. 40-1 ¶¶ 11. Pertler nonetheless persisted in not disclosing Officer Beckman's misconduct to Assistant Carlton County Attorneys responsible for prosecuting criminal matters. See Am. Compl. ¶ 17; ECF No. 40-1 ¶ 13.
An Assistant Carlton County Attorney independently learns of the information concerning Officer Beckman. In May 2018, Assistant Carlton County Attorney Michael Boese learned of Beckman's past misconduct (and that it had been shared previously with Pertler) during the course of an unrelated felony case that Boese was prosecuting involving Beckman. See Am. Compl. ¶ 25; ECF No. 40-1 ¶¶ 16-17. Boese shared his findings with other Assistant Carlton County Attorneys, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of nineteen pending criminal prosecutions, all unrelated to Lozoya's case. See Am. Compl. ¶ 25; ECF No. 40-1 ¶¶ 18-20. These cases were not re-charged. ECF No. 40-1 ¶ 28.
Pertler loses his bid for reelection, and the Acting County Attorney adopts a policy regarding the disclosure of Officer Beckman's misconduct. In November 2018, Pertler lost the Carlton County Attorney election to Lauri Ketola. ECF No. 40-1 ¶ 27. Pertler designated Assistant County Attorney Jeffrey Boucher as Acting Carlton County Attorney for the remainder of (what would have been) Pertler's term. See Am. Compl. ¶ 26; ECF No. 40-1 ¶ 23. In December 2018, Boucher implemented a Brady Disclosure Policy and advised the Cloquet City Administrator of cases that had been dismissed based on Beckman's misconduct. See Am. Compl. ¶ 27; ECF No. 40-1 ¶¶ 24-26. In a letter to the city, Boucher wrote, “Pursuant to our obligations under Brady v. Maryland [] and related case law, the findings in question must be disclosed in every case in which Officer Scott Beckman is involved, ” and “[F]indings of misconduct such as those involving [] Beckman are of a type where the misconduct should be taken into account at the time of charging.” ECF No. 40-1 ¶ 26; see Am. Compl. ¶ 27. Ketola took office in January 2019 and directed a review of the cases involving Beckman. ECF No. 40-1 ¶¶ 27-28. As a result, the County retroactively dismissed eight convictions, with the records sealed and expunged. See Am. Compl. ¶ 28; ECF No. 40-1 ¶¶ 27-29. It is not clear whether Lozoya's case was included among these eight dismissed convictions, though as described in the next paragraph, his case would be dismissed.
Lozoya's case is dismissed. In February 2019, Lozoya's attorney learned of Beckman's misconduct and filed a motion seeking to withdraw Lozoya's guilty plea asserting that “Defendant's counsel became aware the State intended to dismissed [sic] charges after discovery of a due process violation in the form of failing to provide notice of Brady/Giglio material to Defendant.” ECF No. 39-2; see Am. Compl. ¶ 30. Two days later, Ketola moved to dismiss...
To continue reading
Request your trial