Thomas v. Barze

Decision Date30 September 2014
Docket NumberCivil No. 12–2272 JRT/FLN.
PartiesDontae THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. Tyrone BARZE, Jr., Victor Mills and City of Minneapolis, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

Robert Bennett, Brett M. Burns, and Andrew J. Noel, Gaskins, Bennett, Birrell, Schupp, LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for plaintiffs.

Andrea Kloehn Naef, Brian Scott Carter, Tracey N. Fussy, Assistant City Attorneys, Minneapolis City Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge.

Plaintiff Dontae Thomas was a senior at Patrick Henry High School in Minneapolis when, after lunch in January 2012, he was asked to meet with two school police officers, Defendants Tyrone Barze and Victor Mills. According to Thomas, during this meeting in an inner office in the special education wing, Barze put him in a choke hold and knocked him out. He brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Barze, Mills, and the City of Minneapolis (“the City”), bringing claims for unreasonable seizure, false arrest, and excessive force against Barze and Mills and a claim under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), against the City. Defendants move for partial summary judgment on all of Thomas' claims except the excessive force claim against Barze, asking the Court to dismiss the false arrest and unreasonable seizure claims against Barze, all counts against Mills, and the Monell claim against the City. Thomas moves to exclude Defendants' expert witness, Joshua Lego on the grounds that Lego's report is based on Defendants' version of events, includes improper legal conclusions, and includes medical opinions beyond the scope of Lego's expertise as a police trainer on the use of force.

The Court will deny Defendants' summary judgment with regard to the unreasonable seizure claim against Barze and Mills and the excessive force claim against Mills. The Court concludes that, taking the facts in a light most favorable to Thomas, a reasonable jury could find that Mills and Barze did not have a reasonable basis to require Thomas to meet with them in the office and that Mills encouraged Barze in using the choke hold, or at least was required to intervene to stop him but failed to do so. The Court also concludes that Barze and Mills are not entitled to qualified immunity against these claims. Thomas has indicated that he is willing to voluntarily dismiss his Monell claim against the City, so the Court will deny as moot Defendants' motion with regard to that claim and instead dismiss it without prejudice. The Court will also grant Thomas' motion to strike Lego's expert report, but will permit Defendants to file another report within fourteen days, so long as that report does not contain any new opinions by Lego and omits the portions that the Court, as it explains below, deems problematic.

BACKGROUND
I. PARTIES

Plaintiff Dontae Thomas was a student at Patrick Henry High School (Patrick Henry) in Minneapolis in the Special Programming for Adolescent Needs (“SPAN program”), a special education program for students with behavioral needs. (Aff. of Andrea K. Naef, Ex. 2 (Dep. of Lauren Schmitz (“Schmitz Dep.”)) 9, 11, Jan. 15, 2014, Docket No. 24.) At the time of his deposition, Thomas was 19 years old and had finished twelfth grade, but because he did not yet have enough credits to graduate he moved on to a different program called “Transitions Plus,” where he finished his credits. (Naef Aff., Ex. 7 (Dep. of Dontae Thomas (Thomas Dep.)) 8, 30.) Before attending Patrick Henry, Thomas changed schools very frequently, moving between Minneapolis, Bloomington, Otsego, and Arizona, depending on where his parents were and moving between his mother and father's homes. (Thomas Dep. 8–25.)

The SPAN program began as a separate school in 2003 at a middle school and expanded to a separate high school in 2004. (Schmitz Dep. 9.) The program coordinator for SPAN at Patrick Henry, Lauren Schmitz, testified that SPAN students tend to have “emotional or behavioral needs,” such as “issues with compliance,” a hard time regulating their emotions, ADHD, or other behavioral needs. (Id. at 56.) Thomas began in the program in ninth grade. (Id. at 11.) Schmitz reported that she “didn't really have any problems with him,” and had never felt physically threatened by him. (Id. at 13–15.) Schmitz said “the biggest issue that we would work on is compliance and following staff requests on the first request;” she did not remember him having been in any fights before or having threatened other people. (Id. at 59; see also id. at 63 (“I can't recall a time that he threatened someone.”).) When asked about Thomas, John Swain, the head of building security for Patrick Henry High School said that he had had only a few negative incidents, mostly in terms of “pull your pants up,” “be respectful, watch your language ... [t]here was a couple of times I could just remember him kind of going off ... but ... I've seen way worse than him.” (Naef Aff., Ex. 4 (Dep. of John Swain (“Swain Dep.”)) 9, 65.)

Defendant Victor Mills is a School Resource Officer (“SRO”) for Patrick Henry. (Schmitz Dep. 6, 17–18.) The School Resource Officer program is managed through a partnership between Minneapolis Police Department and Minneapolis Public Schools, and managed through the district's security office, whereas the “part-time officers who are hired by the schools, specifically to supplement security function, are hired directly through the schools without any connection to our office.” (Naef Aff., Ex. 3 (Dep. of Jason Matlock (“Matlock Dep.”)) 75.) Defendant Barze is a part-time officer that works lunch duty at Patrick Henry High School. (Schmitz Dep. 41.) Unlike Mills, Officer Barze was not hired by the District's security program, but rather the high school itself. (Matlock Dep. 12.) Officer Barze was a part-time officer hired by Patrick Henry off-duty to provide extra security coverage; he was not hired by the District's security program, but rather the high school itself. (Id. ) A district official testified about how the school navigates the line between criminal and non-criminal interactions between officers and students:

[W]ith a school resource officer, if it's a non-criminal case, that there's not a belief that it's going to be a criminal investigation, then we are very open to how they want to interact with the students.
Had there been a situation where they felt this was moving to a criminal matter, we would have asked ... we ask at that point that school staff notify a parent that there's a criminal, ongoing criminal piece going on.
That's ... sort of where we draw that line between what is good mentoring or good interaction and what the police are doing as police officers.”

(Id. at 88.)

II. EVENTS OF JANUARY 12, 2012

The dispute in this case centers on events that occurred during and shortly after lunch at Patrick Henry on January 12, 2012. The events involved in the incident subject to this suit generally proceeded as follows: Thomas was at lunch with his peers and, at the end of lunch, the head of school security sent Barze and Mills to monitor his table. Mills and Barze apparently heard Thomas and his friend mutter comments at them, so after lunch they asked Thomas' special education program teacher, Schmitz, to use her office for them to meet with Thomas privately after lunch. Mills and Barze met with Thomas' friend Denzel Davis in Schmitz's office with the door closed, and then also met with Thomas in her office with the door closed, which ultimately resulted in Barze putting Thomas in a neck restraint. Thomas left the office crying and went home, after which his father and stepmother took him to the emergency room.

The Court will recount the various accounts of the entire incident according to the deposition testimonies of the various parties and witnesses in this case. The record also includes Barze's write-up of the event, (Naef Aff., Ex. 9), the complete Minneapolis Police Department reports, (Aff. of Andrew J. Noel, Ex. 2, Feb. 5, 2014, Docket No. 31), and a video of the lunchroom activities on January 12, 2012 (Noel Aff., Ex. 1.) The most relevant contents of these documents are discussed in much of the deposition testimony.

A. Lunchroom

When counsel for Defendants asked Thomas to tell the story of the incident on January 12, 2012, he began: “Well we was in the lunchroom, and it was four of us at that table.... [A]nd everybody was being loud at the table ... [n]ormal loud, every day lunch.... And I recall Mills was coming up, he said something, I can't really remember what he said.” (Thomas Dep. 70.) He stated that Barze then approached, and according to Thomas, said, we ain't going to be having all of that today.... And he said, ‘I'm gonna lay one of you niggers down, I'm going to lay one of you niggers down.’ ... [A]nd then he walked back off, then we had some more words with Mills.” (Id. at 71.) Thomas could not really remember what words they had with Mills, but he remembered himself “saying to him like he wouldn't be doing all of that, all of that without the badge.” (Id. at 71.) And then he and Mills had more words: Mills “said something like We can go outside’ or something,” he didn't really recall. (Id. at 72.) He thought this meant going outside to fight or something, and then the bell rang and they all left and he went upstairs. (Id. at 73.) Then Thomas recalled, “I think Lauren Schmitz said we can't go back to class until we talk to Officer Barze.... I was assuming [they wanted to talk to us] from the lunchroom, from the words we had in the lunchroom.” (Id. at 73.) He said that he thought the officers felt they needed to talk to him because of us being disrespectful of them or whatever.” (Id. at 74.) Thomas said that other kids were saying stuff to the officers but that he was not really paying attention. (Id. at 74.) He said he thought...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Dundon v. Kirchmeier
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota
    • 29 Diciembre 2021
    ...[the state actor] seized her within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and that the seizure was unreasonable." Thomas v. Barze, 57 F. Supp. 3d 1040, 1068 (D. Minn. 2014) (citing Andrews v. Fuoss, 417 F.3d 813, 816 (8th Cir. 2005) ). "A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs when there is ‘meaning......
  • Issaenko v. Univ. of Minn.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • 30 Septiembre 2014
    ... ... Beeson, Dean E. Johnson, Clyde E. Allen, Laura M. Brod, Linda A. Cohen, Thomas W. Devine, John R. Frobenius, David M. Larson, Peggy E. Lucas, David J. McMillan, Abdul M. Omari, and Patricia S. Simmons, in their official ... ...
  • Doe v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 31
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • 14 Agosto 2020
    ... ... See , e ... g ., Doe v ... University of St ... Thomas , 240 F. Supp. 3d 984, 995 (D. Minn. 2017) (finding that a "special relationship" between a student and university plausibly created a duty of care) ... ...
  • ResCap Liquidating Trust v. Primary Residential Mortg., Inc. (In re ResCap Liquidating Trust Litig.)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • 14 Enero 2020
    ...experts to offer opinions based on certain assumed facts or circumstances in order to assist the fact finder. See Thomas v. Barze , 57 F. Supp. 3d 1040, 1059 (D. Minn. 2014) (noting the "critical distinction" between "an expert testifying that a disputed fact actually occurred ... and an ex......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT