Gilbert v. City of Minneapolis

Background

Desmond Gilbert brought a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Minneapolis and Officers Christopher Kelley, Evan Komarek, and Joseph Foxley, in their individual and official capacities. Gilbert alleged that the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when they arrested him on October 29, 2019.

Gilbert alleged that Officer Kelley used an armbar to pin him against a wall and sprayed chemical irritant on his face. Officers Komarek and Foxley then took Gilbert to the ground. Komarek used his knee to pin Gilbert’s head, while Foxley used his knee to pin Gilbert’s lower back and handcuffed him. The body-camera footage showed Gilbert convulsing. Gilbert said he had a seizure; the City described his movements as thrashing. Emergency medical personnel took Gilbert to a hospital, where he spent the night.

Gilbert also asserted municipal-liability claims against the City. Under § 1983, a municipality may be liable for a constitutional violation caused by an official policy, a widespread unwritten custom, a decision by an authorized policymaker, or a deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise employees. The court construed Count II as alleging that the City maintained a widespread unwritten custom of using excessive force. It construed Count III as alleging that the City failed to adequately train or supervise officers to avoid excessive force and unlawful restraint maneuvers.

Evidence About the Minneapolis Police Department

The Minnesota Department of Human Rights issued a 2022 report finding probable cause that the City and Minneapolis Police Department engaged in a pattern or practice of race discrimination. The report discussed racial disparities in uses of force, stops, searches, and arrests involving Black individuals.

The U.S. Department of Justice issued a 2023 report finding reasonable cause to believe that the City and Police Department engaged in a pattern or practice that deprived people of constitutional and federal-law rights. The report specifically discussed excessive force and unlawful discrimination against Black people. Gilbert relied on these reports, as well as other complaints and reports, to support his municipal-liability claims.

The City disputed Gilbert’s interpretation of the reports and the evidence about police training. It pointed to written policies stating that officers should use only objectively reasonable force, use de-escalation tactics, and avoid discriminatory policing. The City also argued that factual questions remained. The court considered the reports for purposes of summary judgment but did not decide whether they would be admissible at trial.

Summary-Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party shows that no genuine dispute exists about any material fact and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A material fact could affect the outcome, and a genuine dispute exists when the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to decide for either side. At this stage, the court must view the evidence favorably to the nonmoving party and may not weigh evidence or decide witness credibility.

Count II: Unwritten Custom of Excessive Force

For Count II, Gilbert had to show without a genuine factual dispute that: (1) a continuing and widespread pattern of unconstitutional misconduct existed; (2) City policymakers were deliberately indifferent to, or tacitly authorized, that conduct after receiving notice; and (3) the custom caused Gilbert’s constitutional injury.

The court found factual disputes concerning all three elements. The parties disputed the factual statements and significance of the Minnesota and Department of Justice reports, the similarity between the incidents described in those reports and Gilbert’s arrest, and the weight the reports should receive. The parties also disagreed about police training and the effect of written policies discouraging excessive force.

The court further held that the evidence did not establish as a matter of law that City officials had sufficient notice. Whether prior complaints and findings were factually similar enough to show deliberate indifference or tacit authorization required an inference for the jury. Gilbert also had not developed an explicit causation argument or identified evidence establishing that the alleged custom caused his injuries.

Count III: Failure to Train or Supervise

For Count III, Gilbert had to show that: (1) the City’s training and supervision practices were inadequate; (2) the City deliberately disregarded the rights of others by adopting those practices; and (3) the alleged deficiencies caused his constitutional injury.

The court found conflicting evidence about the adequacy of Minneapolis Police Department training. The Minnesota and Department of Justice reports criticized training, investigations, and discipline. Other evidence, however, suggested that officers received adequate training in restraint techniques and avoiding force. This conflict created a factual dispute.

The court also found that whether City policymakers had actual or constructive notice of specific training or supervision deficiencies was a jury question. Statements and findings about general problems within the Police Department did not specifically identify the relevant deficiencies or precisely address the period before Gilbert’s 2019 arrest. In addition, Gilbert had not identified evidence connecting the alleged training deficiencies to his injuries.

Ruling

The court denied Gilbert’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The order did not resolve the underlying excessive-force claim against the officers or the City’s ultimate liability on Counts II and III. The court also declined to address qualified immunity because the defendants had not filed a dispositive motion presenting that issue.