Blackwell v. Circle K

Background

Richard Preston Blackwell alleged that Circle K and various Roseville police defendants discriminated against him based on race and otherwise violated his constitutional rights. The dispute began when Blackwell tried to use a Circle K microwave for food he brought himself. After a later visit, police responded to the store, detained Blackwell while preparing trespass paperwork, directed him to leave, and told him he could not return to the property for one year without facing arrest and prosecution.

Blackwell asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1988, as well as claims under Minnesota law. Instead of paying the filing fee, he applied to proceed without paying it. The court reviewed the complaint before formal service under the statute governing applications to proceed without paying filing fees.

Section 1983 claims

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under state law violated a constitutional right.

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against the Circle K-related defendants because Blackwell did not plausibly allege that they acted jointly with the police. The court noted that Blackwell alleged that he requested police involvement, that no officer was stationed at the store, and that the officers independently investigated before issuing the trespass notice.

The court also dismissed the § 1983 claims against the City of Roseville-related defendants. For the official-capacity claims, Blackwell did not allege facts showing that the officers acted under an unconstitutional city policy or a widespread, persistent unconstitutional custom. For the individual-capacity claims against Erika Scheider, Joe Adams, Chau, and the unidentified Roseville police defendant, he did not allege particular facts showing what each defendant did or failed to do.

As to Officers Walker and Sundstrom, the court found that Blackwell provided no factual detail showing that they discriminated against him because of race or gender, including no facts showing that similarly situated people were treated differently. The court also found that he did not plausibly allege an unreasonable seizure. Blackwell initially approached the officers voluntarily, and, even assuming that being told he could not leave while the paperwork was prepared constituted a seizure, the allegations did not establish that the detention was unreasonable.

Section 1981 claims

The court dismissed Blackwell’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The statute protects specified rights involving contracts and the full and equal benefit of laws. The court found no facts showing that Blackwell had a contractual relationship with Circle K or a preexisting contractual right to use its microwave without purchasing food. It also explained that § 1981 does not create a general claim for race discrimination apart from the rights protected by the statute.

The court further found that Blackwell’s claims under § 1981’s full-and-equal-benefit provision failed because his allegations of race and gender discrimination were conclusory and lacked particular facts describing the discrimination or showing how the state-actor defendants contributed to it.

Section 1988 and state-law claims

The court dismissed the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because that statute provides certain remedies and fee provisions but does not itself create an independent private cause of action. Because Blackwell did not establish a federal cause of action, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims.

Disposition

The court ordered that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice. It also ordered that Blackwell’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee be denied as moot. The order was signed by Judge David S. Doty.