Parada v. Anoka Cnty.
| Decision Date | 30 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-3082 |
| Citation | 54 F.4th 1016 |
| Parties | Myriam PARADA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. ANOKA COUNTY; James Stuart, Anoka County Sheriff, All individuals being sued in their individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellants Nikolas Oman, Coon Rapids Police Officer, All individuals being sued in their individual and official capacity; City of Coon Rapids; John Doe, unknown/unnamed defendants, All individuals being sued in their individual and official capacity; Jane Doe, unknown/unnamed defendants, All individuals being sued in their individual and official capacity; Coon Rapids Police Department, Defendants State of Minnesota, Amicus on Behalf of Appellee(s) |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellants and appeared on the appellants’ brief, was Andrew T. Jackola, of Anoka, MN. The following attorney(s) also appeared on the appellants’ brief; Jason Stover, of Anoka, MN.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee and appeared on the appellee's brief, was Ian Bratlie, of Mankato, MN. The following attorney(s) also appeared on the appellee's brief; Alain M. Baudry, of Minneapolis, MN., Amanda R. Cefalu, of Minneapolis, MN., Clare A. Diegel, of Minneapolis, MN., Isabella Salomao Nascimento, of Minneapolis, MN., Teresa Nelson, of Minneapolis, MN.
Counsel who represented the amicus curiae State of Minnesota, was Emily Beth Anderson, AAG, of Saint Paul, MN.
Before GRASZ, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
The Anoka County Jail referred every detainee born outside the United States, including Myriam Parada, to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The district court1 determined that this policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, and a jury awarded her $30,000 on a false-imprisonment theory. We affirm.
Parada ended up in the Anoka County Jail after an officer discovered that she had been driving without a license. While going through the booking process, she had to disclose her country of birth, which was Mexico. Even after deeming her "[r]eady for [r]elease," Anoka County continued to hold her while a deputy contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE.
The delay was due to Anoka County's "unwritten policy requiring its employees to contact ICE every time a foreign-born individual is detained, irrespective of whether the person is a U.S. citizen." (Emphasis added). The way it works is simple: "If the individual [says] they were born abroad, the jail will send ICE a notification" and "attempt[ ] to wait to start release procedures ... until [it] hear[s] back," which "could take between 20 minutes and 6 hours." Eventually, after four hours of waiting, the deputies released Parada into ICE custody.
The delay became the basis for Parada's federal lawsuit against Anoka County. One of her claims alleged that discriminating against her based on her country of origin violated the Equal Protection Clause. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 ; 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A second was that she was falsely imprisoned. See Kleidon v. Glascock , 215 Minn. 417, 10 N.W. 2d 394, 397 (1943).
Both claims survived summary judgment. The district court concluded that Anoka County's policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment as a matter of law but left the determination of damages for the jury. The false-imprisonment claim went to the jury on both liability and damages, even though Anoka County filed a pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a).
The damages were a mixed bag. The jury awarded her $30,000 for false imprisonment but gave her only one dollar for the constitutional violation. Despite getting less than she wanted on the federal claim, she received a sizable attorney-fee award totaling $248,218.13. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). At the same time, the district court denied Anoka County's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b).
Illegal discrimination is at the heart of both of Parada's claims, including the one alleging that Anoka County violated her equal-protection rights. Our review of it is de novo. See Hosna v. Groose , 80 F.3d 298, 303 (8th Cir. 1996).
The district court's conclusion was correct: Anoka County's policy is a classic example of national-origin discrimination. On its face, it treats people differently depending on where they were born. Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co. , 414 U.S. 86, 88, 94 S.Ct. 334, 38 L.Ed.2d 287 (1973) (). Those born abroad must wait anywhere from 20 minutes to 6 hours longer while deputies consult ICE. For those born in the United States, by contrast, there is no call and release is immediate.
Classifications based on alienage are "suspect," meaning they are subject to strict scrutiny. Knapp v. Hanson , 183 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 1999) ; see City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr. , 473 U.S. 432, 440, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985). For the policy to survive, Anoka County must demonstrate it is "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest." Johnson v. California , 543 U.S. 499, 509, 125 S.Ct. 1141, 160 L.Ed.2d 949 (2005). We will assume that Anoka County's interest in serving as a good law-enforcement partner to ICE is compelling, even though we have our doubts about it.2
The bigger problem, however, is Anoka County's scattershot approach to accomplishing its interest. By its own statistics, more than half of the foreign-born individuals it referred to ICE turned out to be American citizens. It is not hard to figure out why. For one thing, many who are born elsewhere will have already become American citizens. Consider a few examples. By the strict terms of the policy, it would apply to famous actors like Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger—both long-time American citizens—not to mention six former members of the United States Supreme Court. The policy is also underinclusive: it will miss people who are American-born children of foreign diplomats or who have renounced their citizenship, like American-born Jews who have accepted sole citizenship under Israel's Law of Return. See 8 C.F.R. § 101.3 (); 8 U.S.C. § 1481 (loss of citizenship). The point is that Anoka County's chosen means were not "specifically and narrowly framed to accomplish" its interest. Shaw v. Hunt , 517 U.S. 899, 908, 116 S.Ct. 1894, 135 L.Ed.2d 207 (1996) (citation omitted).
It is also significant that Anoka County had national-origin-neutral alternatives at its disposal. See Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ. , 476 U.S. 267, 280 n.6, 106 S.Ct. 1842, 90 L.Ed.2d 260 (1986) (). Instead of asking a non-targeted question about birthplace, it could have asked detainees directly about their citizenship. Cf. Plyler v. Doe , 457 U.S. 202, 223, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982) (). And for situations in which there was reason to doubt the answer, Anoka County could have adopted a reasonable-suspicion-like requirement for making referrals to ICE based on "specific and articulable facts." Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The failure to consider these alternatives provides further evidence that it did not adopt a narrowly tailored policy. See City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. , 488 U.S. 469, 507, 109 S.Ct. 706, 102 L.Ed.2d 854 (1989) ().
According to the jury, the unwritten policy also led to Parada's false imprisonment. Except now the question is less about fit and more about how Anoka County litigated the case. Its argument is that the district court should have granted judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50. It has several theories why, and we review de novo whether any of them work. See Klingenberg v. Vulcan Ladder USA, LLC , 936 F.3d 824, 830 (8th Cir. 2019).
Procedural history matters, especially in a case like this one. Once Parada finished presenting her case, Anoka County brought its first motion for judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) (allowing pre-judgment motions). The argument, at least at that point, was that the evidence did not match the complaint. According to Anoka County, Parada had started with a vicarious-liability theory, only to switch to a direct-liability theory at trial. The district court disagreed but invited Anoka County to renew its motion after trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) (allowing "renewed motion[s]").
In its post-verdict motion, Anoka County took the district court up on its invitation and added two new arguments. One was a request for official immunity, but it came too late. See Hyundai Motor Fin. Co. v. McKay Motors I, LLC , 574 F.3d 637, 640–41 (8th Cir. 2009) ().
The other was a request for statutory immunity. The district court gave Anoka County the benefit of the doubt and reviewed this one on the merits, but only because it was "inextricably intertwined" with the issues that had been raised in the earlier motion. Ultimately, however, the court ruled that statutory immunity was unavailable because the conduct arose out of an "unprotected" operational-level decision. See Holmquist v. State , 425 N.W.2d 230, 232 (Minn. 1988) ().
Hoping that the third time is the charm, Anoka County has appealed. It again argues that Parada changed theories during trial. There are two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griner v. King
... ... Stores, Inc. , 758 F.2d 1293 (8th Cir. 1985) (per ... curiam)); see also Parada v. Anoka Cnty. , 555 ... F.Supp.3d 663, 687 (D. Minn. 2021), aff'd, 54 F.4th 1016 ... ...
-
Mountain Mech. Contractors v. Bes Design/Build, LLC
...the burden on successful plaintiffs to bear their own costs.” Parada v. Anoka Cnty., 555 F.Supp.3d 663, 683 (D. Minn. 2021), aff'd, 54 F.4th 1016 (8th Cir. 2022) (citing Casey v. City of Cabool, 12 F.3d 799, 805 (8th Cir. 1993)). While “it appears that LRSD's attorneys prosecuted this appea......