Odegard v. Widmark

Background

Carri Jo Odegard, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint against Brown County Sheriff Jason Seidl, the City of New Ulm, and New Ulm police officers Aaron Widmark, Brady Murphy, Jay Backer, and Chief Dave Borchert. After an earlier order dismissed most of her claims, the defendants moved to dismiss all remaining claims except her claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on alleged violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Odegard alleged that officers used excessive force during an August 25, 2021 interaction involving her broken-down vehicle, causing a tibia injury and delaying medical care. She also alleged unlawful searches, interrogation, arrest, home entry, property damage, failures to investigate reported crimes, and later stalking and intimidation. She alleged that officers, including Seidl, used unreasonable force to enter her home on February 1, 2022, resulting in a seven-day detention. She further alleged that Backer drove one of several police vehicles that blocked her at a grocery store and falsely accused her of driving without a license.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss, under which well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true but conclusory allegations are not. Although courts read complaints filed by people without lawyers liberally, those complaints must still contain enough facts to state a plausible claim.

State-law tort claims. The court held that Odegard’s common-law claims for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress were barred by Minnesota’s two-year statute of limitations. Odegard filed the initial complaint on July 10, 2024, and the complaint identified incidents on August 25, 2021, and February 1, 2022, but did not identify any incident after July 10, 2022. The court found no supported basis to pause or extend the limitations period and dismissed those claims as time-barred.

Claims under § 1983. The court narrowed Odegard’s constitutional claims to alleged violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. It dismissed without prejudice her § 1983 claims based on the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments because the complaint did not plausibly allege violations of those amendments.

The court granted Borchert’s request to dismiss the § 1983 claim against him. The complaint alleged only that Borchert said, “we are not going to acknowledge breaking your/her leg.” The court found that this statement did not itself violate Odegard’s rights and did not plausibly show that Borchert participated in, was deliberately indifferent to, or conspired to cause the alleged violations. The court therefore dismissed the claim against Borchert without prejudice.

The court denied Backer’s request to dismiss the § 1983 claim against him. Although the allegation concerning Backer was minimal, the court accepted as true Odegard’s allegation that he drove one of five law-enforcement vehicles that blocked her at a grocery store and falsely accused her of driving without a license. The court found that allegation sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage to plausibly connect Backer to an allegedly unlawful stop.

City of New Ulm. The court dismissed without prejudice Odegard’s claims against the City. A local government is not automatically responsible for its employees’ alleged misconduct. To state a claim based on municipal liability, a plaintiff must allege that an official city policy, decision, or widespread practice caused the constitutional injury. The court found that Odegard did not allege that an official policy, training decision, widespread pattern, or city policymaker caused the alleged misconduct.

Conspiracy claims. The court dismissed without prejudice Odegard’s conspiracy claims under §§ 1983 and 1985. Although she described officers acting together during some interactions, she did not plausibly allege an agreement to violate her rights. For the § 1985 claim, she also did not allege the discriminatory purpose required for a conspiracy to deny equal protection or equal legal privileges.

Disposition

The court ordered that the defendants’ motions for partial dismissal were GRANTED IN PART. Odegard’s state-law tort claims were dismissed as time-barred. Her § 1983 claims based on the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments, her claims against the City of New Ulm, and her conspiracy claims under §§ 1983 and 1985 were dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The only remaining claims were § 1983 claims based on alleged Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, except that the claim against Dave Borchert was dismissed without prejudice.