Savage v. City of Cambridge

Background

Savage alleged that Officer Cristiano Rosa stopped him in Cambridge, Minnesota, on March 17, 2023, for a suspected headlight violation. After Savage opened the vehicle door at Rosa’s request, Rosa asked whether Savage had weapons. Savage alleged that he showed no objective signs of nervousness or threat. Savage was removed from the vehicle and handcuffed. Sergeant Matthew Giese searched a Yeti container in the vehicle and said it contained methamphetamine. Savage was arrested and charged in state court with multiple drug offenses.

Savage alleged that Rosa and Giese jointly prepared the criminal complaint and probable-cause statement and included false or fabricated assertions. He also alleged that Deputy Jonathon Vander Vegt was listed as a witness, although the complaint did not describe precisely how Vander Vegt was involved in the arrest. Savage alleged that the incident caused six days of jail detention, reputational harm from publication of his name in a local newsflyer, and worsened symptoms of his pre-existing post-traumatic stress disorder.

On April 24, 2024, the state court suppressed all evidence from the traffic stop and dismissed the charges. That court found that Rosa unlawfully expanded the traffic stop by asking about a weapon without a reasonable basis. The federal court relied on that suppression order when screening Savage’s complaint, but it stated that Rosa and Giese could later answer or otherwise respond after service.

Claims and Screening Standard

Savage asserted three causes of action: a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment unreasonable search, unreasonable seizure, and false arrest; a municipal-liability claim under Monell v. Department of Social Services; and conspiracy claims under §§ 1983 and 1985(3). He sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief, including unspecified retraining and policy reform.

Because Savage applied to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). That statute requires dismissal of an action or part of an action that is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. In screening, the court accepted factual allegations as true, drew reasonable inferences for Savage, and required allegations showing a plausible claim rather than a merely speculative one.

Rulings

For Count I, the court assumed that the complaint stated enough facts at the screening stage to support a Fourth Amendment claim against Rosa and Giese in their individual capacities. It dismissed the claim against Vander Vegt because the complaint identified no specific conduct by him that could violate the Fourth Amendment.

The court also dismissed the § 1983 claim against Collin. It treated Collin as a private citizen and explained that a private citizen can be liable under § 1983 only when the alleged conduct is fairly attributable to the government, such as through joint participation with government officers. The complaint’s label of Collin as an “off-book confidential informant,” based on her presence in the vehicle, did not provide concrete facts showing an agreement or joint participation.

The court dismissed Count II, the Monell claim against the City of Cambridge and Isanti County. A local government is not automatically liable for constitutional violations by its employees. The complaint had to identify a government policy or custom that caused the alleged violation, but the court found that it did not identify any relevant policy or custom.

The court dismissed the § 1983 conspiracy part of Count III because the complaint did not provide enough concrete facts to support an inference that the defendants reached an agreement to commit an unconstitutional act. It also dismissed the § 1985(3) conspiracy claim because the complaint did not plausibly allege that the defendants acted because of Savage’s membership in a protected class or because of anti-disability bias.

The court dismissed Count I without prejudice as to Vander Vegt and Collin, dismissed Counts II and III without prejudice, and dismissed the City of Cambridge, Isanti County, Vander Vegt, and Collin from the action. The individual-capacity Fourth Amendment claims against Rosa and Giese remained. The court also granted Savage’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs and denied his pending motions without prejudice as premature because the complaint had not been served, no defendant had appeared, and discovery had not begun. Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan ordered that service be initiated against Rosa and Giese by separate order.