Parada v. Anoka Cnty.

• Decision Date: 17 August 2021
• Docket Number: Civil No. 18-795 (JRT/TNL)
• Citation: 555 F.Supp.3d 663
• Parties: Myriam PARADA, Plaintiff, v. ANOKA COUNTY and James Stewart, Anoka County Sheriff in his individual and official capacity, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

555 F.Supp.3d 663

Myriam PARADA, Plaintiff,

v.ANOKA COUNTY and James Stewart, Anoka County Sheriff in his individual and official capacity, Defendants.

Civil No. 18-795 (JRT/TNL)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

Signed August 17, 2021

Amanda R. Cefalu and Nathan T. Boone, KUTAK ROCK, 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3400, Minneapolis, MN 55402; Alain M. Baudry and Matthew R. Veenstra, SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP, 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4750, Minneapolis, MN 55402; and Ian Bratlie and Teresa J. Nelson, ACLU of MINNESOTA, 709 South Front Street, Suite 1B, Mankato, MN 56001, for plaintiff.

Jason J. Stover, Andrew T. Jackola, and Robert I. Yount, ANOKA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, 2100 Third Avenue, Suite 720, Government Center, Anoka, MN 55303, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

JOHN R. TUNHEIM, Chief Judge Following a jury verdict awarding nominal damages for Anoka County's violation of Plaintiff Myriam Parada's Fourteenth Amendment rights, finding Anoka County liable for falsely imprisoning Parada, and awarding her $30,000 in compensatory damages for false imprisonment, Defendants have filed a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, renewing their motion filed at the close of Plaintiff's case-in-chief at trial, asserting that Parada's false imprisonment claim is not cognizable under Minnesota law. Parada has also filed post-trial motions: a Motion to Amend the Judgment, seeking a permanent injunction; and a Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs.

Because the Court finds that a municipality can be directly liable for false imprisonment under Minnesota law, it will deny Defendants’ Motion. The Court will also deny Parada's Motion to Amend the Judgment because a permanent injunction is not necessary to prevent future irreparable harm. Lastly, because Parada is the prevailing party, the Court will grant Parada's Motion for Attorney Fees, but will reduce the amount of fees requested to reflect Parada's partial success at trial.

BACKGROUND

On July 25, 2017, Plaintiff Myriam Parada was arrested for driving without a license, detained at the Anoka County Jail, and then taken into ICE custody and placed in removal proceedings. See Parada v. Anoka Cnty. , 481 F. Supp. 3d 888, 893–96 (D. Minn. 2020). Parada initiated a civil rights action against Defendants Anoka County and Anoka County Sheriff James Stuart in his official capacity (collectively, "Anoka County" or "Defendants") seeking, among other things, relief for alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and for false imprisonment in violation of Minnesota law. Id. at 896. Through discovery, it was revealed that, at the time of Parada's arrest, the Anoka County Jail had an unwritten policy requiring its employees to contact ICE whenever a foreign-born individual was detained at the jail, without regard to whether the individual was a U.S. citizen. Id. at 895.

The parties filed motions for summary judgment, and the Court found that Anoka County's unwritten policy of contacting ICE was facially unconstitutional because it discriminated against individuals based solely on national origin and was not narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. See id. at 903–04. Whether Parada was entitled to compensatory damages for actual injury caused by Anoka County's constitutional violation was left to be decided at trial. Id. at 904 ; see also Order on Causation at 3–4, Jan. 22, 2021, Docket No. 253. The Court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment on Parada's false imprisonment claim, however, finding that there remained disputed facts about whether Parada was detained longer than legally justified. Parada , 481 F. Supp. 3d at 906.

Following the Court's summary judgment order, Anoka County represented to the Court that, "[t]he ICE notification practice was found to be unconstitutional, and the Anoka Defendants respect the Court's decision. They immediately ceased the practice and it will not resume unless and until a court of appeal determines that this Court's decision was in error." (Anoka Cnty. Stmt. of Case at 6, Jan. 11, 2021, Docket No. 223.)

During a pretrial conference, Anoka County inquired as to Parada's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, which had not yet been addressed in relation to the trial. (Tr. Status Conf. at 16–17, Mar. 10, 2021, Docket No. 299.) Parada's counsel stated that because Anoka County suspended the policy after the Court's summary judgment order, he thought the injunctive claims might be moot but needed to give it more thought. (Id. at 17.) The Court told Parada's counsel to further consider the matter and provide input, and then the Court would make a determination about how to handle the claims. (Id. ) Parada's counsel did not provide additional insight, and no such determination was made before trial.

At trial, the jury heard testimony from Commander David Pacholl of the Anoka County Jail, who oversees jail employees and policies. (Tr. Vol. II at 313:1–20, Feb. 26, 2021, Docket No. 279.) Among other policies, Pacholl testified about the jail's unwritten ICE notification policy and his consultation with the Anoka County Attorney's Office about the jail's practice of notifying ICE when someone is in custody who was born outside the United States. (See id. at 317:9–319:19.)

Pacholl and Anoka County Jail detention deputies testified about operation of the ICE notification policy. Deputies notified ICE through a portal and then waited to see if they got a response, which could take between 20 minutes and 6 hours; if they did not receive a response, deputies made a follow-up phone call to ICE, although phone calls were not tracked. (Id. at 340:16–341:12; Tr. Vol. III at 511:11–14, Feb. 26, 2021, Docket No. 280.) Indeed, a former detention deputy testified that he was trained to wait for ICE to call back after alerting the agency about an individual in custody. (Tr. Vol. III at 478:10–12.) Pacholl explained that an ICE detainer is not legally sufficient for detaining someone past their release time, but Parada introduced an exhibit showing that a jail employee had written "Hold for ICE" on a facility release form for another individual, shortly before Parada's arrest. (Tr. Vol. II at 353:13–17, 354:18–23.)

Pacholl testified that the jail is no longer notifying ICE about individuals in custody who were born outside the United States, based on the advice of their attorneys, (id. at 328:3–5), and he has informed his lieutenants, sergeants, and detention deputies to cease the practice, (id. at 328:6–14.) Detention Deputy Bryan Hermanson was asked if he received an email from Commander Pacholl that the policy would no longer be followed, and stated that he "probably" did. (Tr. Vol. III at 563:17–24.)

At the close of Parada's case-in-chief, Anoka County moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) on Parada's claim for false imprisonment. (Tr. Vol. III at 598:11–14.) Anoka County asserted that Parada's false imprisonment claim fails as a matter of law because Parada brought the claim against Anoka County under a theory of vicarious liability, yet no individual defendant remained in the case at the time of trial. (Id. at 598:15–599.) Parada opposed the motion, stating that she pleaded the false imprisonment claim directly against Anoka County. (Tr. Vol. IV at 618:6–619:3, Feb. 26, 2021, Docket No. 281.)

The Court denied the motion but suggested that the issues raised by Anoka County could be examined through a post-trial motion, if appropriate. (Id. at 625:10–15, 627:9–13.) The Court indicated that the operative Complaint appeared to include a direct claim against Anoka County for false imprisonment, but noted that the issue of whether a municipality could be directly liable for false imprisonment is a complex question of law. (Id. at 625:9–626:14.) After denying Anoka County's motion, the Court asked the parties whether there was anything to be changed in the false imprisonment jury instructions, and they responded that they had no changes. (Id. at 626:15–627:7.)

The case was submitted to the jury with instructions on actual damages for the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause claim and on the requirements for false imprisonment under Minnesota law. (See Tr. Vol. IV at 670:19–677:22.) As to proving false imprisonment, the Court instructed the jury that:

Ms. Parada claims she was falsely imprisoned, both at the Anoka County Jail and later by ICE at the Sherburne County Jail because of application of Anoka County's unconstitutional policy. False imprisonment occurred if, one, Anoka County intentionally restricted the physical liberty of Ms. Parada by words or acts; and two, Ms. Parada was aware of the words or acts and was harmed by them.

This restriction may be caused by words or by acts, including: 1. The use of physical barriers, or 2. The use of physical force, or 3. The threat of the immediate use of physical force. It must be proved that Ms. Parada believed Anoka County had the ability to carry out the threat.

This restriction must be complete. A restriction is complete if there is no reasonable means of escape known to the person. The Court's determination that Anoka County's policy of contacting ICE was unconstitutional can color your determination of false imprisonment.

If you find that Ms. Parada was detained for even one second longer than she would have been but for the Anoka County Jail ICE notification policy, you must find that she was falsely imprisoned.

(Tr. Vol. IV at 675:11–676:8.)

The jury returned a special verdict, finding that Anoka County caused Parada to be falsely imprisoned and that she suffered actual injury from the false imprisonment, and awarding $30,000 in compensatory damages for false imprisonment. (See Jury Verdict at 3, Jan. 29, 2021, Docket No. 265.) The jury awarded Parada nominal...