Blackwell v. Washington County, Minnesota
- John Tunheim
- 0:24-cv-00035
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 16
In Blackwell v. Washington County, Judge Tunheim dismissed the claims with prejudice, granted one dismissal motion, denied another as moot, and denied default judgment.
Richard Preston Blackwell’s state-law and federal civil-rights claims were dismissed with prejudice. Washington County and the named and unidentified defendants prevailed on the dismissal motion; the renewed dismissal motion was denied as moot, and Blackwell’s default-judgment motion was denied.
What happened
In Blackwell v. Washington County, Richard Preston Blackwell sued Washington County and several individuals over a strip search at the Washington County Jail in January 2018. He brought constitutional claims under a federal civil-rights law and state-law claims, and he represented himself.
The court found that Blackwell eventually served the defendants properly and had good cause for missing the 90-day service deadline, so it did not dismiss the case for defective or late service. It ruled, however, that his state-law claims were filed too late. Although the federal civil-rights claims were timely, the court found that none stated a valid claim because the alleged booking search was not plausibly unreasonable or unconstitutional under the facts pleaded.
Judge John R. Tunheim granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied their renewed motion as moot, denied Blackwell’s motion for default judgment, and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Blackwell v. Washington County, Minnesota · No. 0:24-cv-00035
- John Tunheim
- Dec. 2, 2024
Background
Richard Preston Blackwell sued Washington County, Commander Roger Heinen, Officer Johnson, and several unidentified defendants. He alleged that Officer Johnson strip-searched him when he entered the Washington County Jail, where he was confined from January 10 through January 20, 2018, after an alleged probation violation. His amended complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and Minnesota state law. Blackwell proceeded without a lawyer and under the court procedure allowing a person who cannot afford filing costs to proceed without paying them.
Defendants moved to dismiss based on insufficient service of process, expiration of the statutes of limitations, and failure to state a claim. Blackwell also moved for default judgment. The court considered defendants’ original motion to dismiss, the renewed motion to dismiss, and Blackwell’s motion for default judgment.
Service of Process
The court held that Blackwell’s first three service attempts were insufficient. His first two attempts occurred before the court issued summonses. His third attempt involved service on Beth Kraske, an office specialist who was not authorized to accept service for Washington County or the individual defendants. Blackwell’s fourth attempt, on July 29, 2024, sufficiently served the defendants through Washington County Administrator Kevin Corbid, but it occurred after the 90-day service deadline.
The court found good cause for the delay. It relied on the U.S. Marshals Service serving the wrong county employee, Blackwell’s repeated efforts to learn how to complete service, and his status as a self-represented litigant proceeding without payment of filing costs. The court therefore did not dismiss the case for insufficient or untimely service.
Statute of Limitations
The court held that all of Blackwell’s state-law claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The alleged injuries occurred no later than January 20, 2018. Under Minnesota law, the state-law action commenced when the summons was served, and service did not occur until July 29, 2024. The court dismissed the state-law claims with prejudice.
The court held that the § 1983 claims were not barred by the statute of limitations. It applied Minnesota’s six-year limitations period and concluded that, for these claims, the action commenced when Blackwell filed his complaint on January 8, 2024. The amended complaint related back to that filing because it involved the same defendants and they were, or should have been, on notice of the lawsuit.
Failure to State a Claim
The court then ruled that each of the four § 1983 counts failed to state a claim. Count I asserted a Fourteenth Amendment claim. Because Blackwell was confined for an alleged probation violation rather than held as a pretrial detainee, the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment theory failed under the standard it applied.
Counts II, III, and IV asserted claims under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments concerning the strip and body-cavity search. Taking Blackwell’s allegations as true, the court held that searches conducted as part of booking procedures have regularly been found reasonable, including for minor offenses. The court also held that Blackwell did not plausibly allege that Officer Johnson did anything beyond conducting the routine search. The court dismissed the remaining claims for failure to state a claim.
Disposition
The court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at Docket No. 11. It denied Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss at Docket No. 36 as moot. It denied Blackwell’s Motion for Default Judgment at Docket No. 20. It dismissed Blackwell’s Amended Complaint with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.