White v. City of Minneapolis
| Docket Number | 21-cv-0371 (WMW/KMM) |
| Decision Date | 16 December 2021 |
| Parties | Kacey White and Charles Stotts, Plaintiffs, v. City of Minneapolis and Mayor Jacob Frey, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Before the Court is Defendants City of Minneapolis and Mayor Jacob Frey's motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Dkt. 13.) Defendants seek judgment in their favor as to four of the five claims alleged in the complaint. Plaintiffs Kacey White and Charles Stotts oppose the motion. For the reasons addressed below, the motion is granted, Plaintiffs' federal law claims are dismissed and the remaining state-law claim is remanded to Hennepin County District Court, Fourth Judicial District.
White and Stotts are residents of Minneapolis, Minnesota, who own the Town Talk Diner & Gastropub (Town Talk), a restaurant in Minneapolis. Defendants are the City of Minneapolis and its mayor, Jacob Frey. Town Talk burned to the ground during the unrest in Minneapolis following the May 25, 2020 murder of George Floyd.
Plaintiffs allege that, in the days following Floyd's death Defendants failed to sufficiently deploy and instruct law enforcement personnel, resulting in property destruction and unrest. On May 28, 2020, after days of unrest in Minneapolis White and Stotts went to Town Talk to assess the condition of their restaurant and discovered extensive damage. White and Stotts boarded up the windows of Town Talk, hoping to prevent further destruction.
Plaintiffs allege that, on the evening of May 28, 2020, Mayor Frey refused to permit law enforcement officers to use methods that would effectively curb the unrest, resulting in an escalation of violence and destruction. Plaintiffs also allege that Mayor Frey and Minneapolis failed to request or provide the personnel necessary to quell the protests- including early deployment of Minnesota National Guard personnel. Plaintiffs allege that Mayor Frey's eventual decision to instruct officers to abandon the police station in the Third Precinct, where Town Talk was located, left citizens alone to defend themselves and their property. According to Plaintiffs, citizens who lived or owned business in the neighborhood surrounding the Third Precinct were not consulted regarding the decision to abandon the precinct. Plaintiffs allege that, when issuing this directive, Mayor Frey deviated from the norm and ignored the chain of command that typically controls such decisions.
During the evening of May 28, 2020, more buildings burned. Citizens who called 911 allegedly either received no response or were told that, unless the situation was “life threatening, ” they would not be assisted for several days. Plaintiffs allege that Mayor Frey and Minneapolis did not request necessary law enforcement reinforcements and that firefighters refrained from entering the protest zone, due in part to their fear of operating without police protection. At 3:30 a.m. on May 29, 2020, Town Talk was set on fire. At 3:45 a.m., Minnesota Governor Tim Walz deployed the National Guard to secure the Third Precinct. Town Talk continued to burn through the early hours of that morning. By 8:19 a.m. on May 29, 2020, Town Talk had burned to the ground.
Plaintiffs allege that Mayor Frey and Minneapolis failed to respond appropriately to the seriousness of the unrest and failed to follow existing policies that governed how to halt and quell agitators. Plaintiffs allege that these failures caused them to suffer more than $4.5 million in damages.
Plaintiffs commenced this action in Hennepin County District Court, Fourth Judicial District, and Defendants removed this action to this Court on February 8, 2021. Plaintiffs' complaint advances five claims. Plaintiffs' first claim alleges that Defendants violated Plaintiffs' procedural-due-process rights in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by failing to quell the agitators and provide Plaintiffs with pre-deprivation notice and a hearing. Plaintiffs' second claim alleges that Defendants violated Plaintiffs' substantive-due-process rights in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to adequately protect Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs' third claim alleges that Defendants neglected to prevent agitators' wrongful acts that harmed Plaintiffs, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Plaintiffs' fourth claim alleges that Defendants' actions resulted in a taking of Plaintiffs' property without just compensation, in violation of the Minnesota Constitution. Plaintiffs' fifth claim alleges that Defendants failed to respond adequately to Plaintiffs' public-records request, in violation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subdiv. 2(a); Minn. R. 1205.0300. Defendants seek judgment on the pleadings in their favor as to Plaintiffs' first four claims.
A party may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings “[a]fter the pleadings are closed-but early enough not to delay trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). The same legal standard used to evaluate a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., applies to a motion for judgment on the pleadings, see Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2012). When determining whether a complaint states a facially plausible claim, a district court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Blankenship v USA Truck, Inc., 601 F.3d 852, 853 (8th Cir. 2010). Factual allegations must be sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations may be disregarded. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Although matters outside the pleadings generally may not be considered when deciding a motion to dismiss, a district court may consider documents necessarily embraced by the pleadings. Ashanti v. City of Golden Valley, 666 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2012). Materials are necessarily embraced by the pleadings when a complaint alleges the contents of the materials and no party questions their authenticity. Zean v. Fairview Health Servs., 858 F.3d 520, 526 (8th Cir. 2017). For instance, the contract on which a breach-of-contract claim rests ordinarily is embraced by the pleadings. See Gorog v. Best Buy Co., 760 F.3d 787, 791 (8th Cir. 2014). As such, the Court may properly consider such documents when deciding Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Plaintiffs advance their federal constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides, in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured . . . .
42 U.S.C. § 1983. For a plaintiff to state a claim for relief pursuant to Section 1983, the plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federally protected right and that the violation occurred under the color of state law. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). A Section 1983 claim against a municipality cannot be based on vicarious liability. See Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997). But a municipality may be subject to Section 1983 liability if the inadequate training of its employees, a municipal policy, or an unofficial municipal custom causes a constitutional injury. See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989) (training); Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694, (1978) (policy or custom); see also Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 520 U.S. at 403-04. The Court addresses, in turn, each of Plaintiffs' federal-law claims.[1]
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated their right to procedural due process, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Procedural-due-process claims are reviewed in two steps. Senty-Haugen v. Goodno, 462 F.3d 876, 886 (8th Cir. 2006). The first step is to determine whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a protected liberty or property interest. Id. If no liberty or property interest exists, there can be no due-process violation. See Dobrovolny v. Moore, 126 F.3d 1111, 1113 (8th Cir. 1997). If the plaintiff has a protected liberty or property interest, however, the second step is to consider what process is due. Senty-Haugen, 462 F.3d at 886 (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332-35 (1976)).
“Protected property interests are created by state law, but federal law determines whether the interest rises to the level of a constitutionally-protected property interest.” Ellis v. City of Yankton, 69 F.3d 915, 917 (8th Cir. 1995). Minnesota law limits “the property rights that are entitled to due process to real property rights, final judgments, and certain vested statutory rights.” Schatz v. Interfaith Care Ctr., 811 N.W.2d 643, 658 (Minn. 2012).
The two conceivable interests that may be inferred from Plaintiffs' complaint are a real property interest in Town Talk and an interest in having that real property protected. The Court addresses each interest in turn.
The “actual ownership of real estate” is one of the property interests protected by the Due Process Clause. Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S 564, 571-72 (1972). As noted above, Minnesota state law recognizes real estate as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial