Mohamed v. Walz
Abdikadar Mohamed and Fowsiya Hassan v. Tim Walz, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Minnesota and individually; State of Minnesota; John Connolly, in his official capacity as Temporary Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services; Shireen Gandhi, individually; Tikki Brown, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families and individually; Minnesota Department of Human Services; Jennifer Fetrow; Twila Villella; John Doe 1-10, individually; Jane Doe 1-10, individually; and Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families
- Donovan Frank
- 0:25-cv-02930
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 14
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Mohamed v. Walz, Judge Frank granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss claims by Somali American childcare owners against Minnesota officials over a CCAP fraud investigation.
Somali American childcare center owners who participated in Minnesota's Child Care Assistance Program and were investigated for alleged fraud; state officials and agencies named as defendants, several of whom are now terminated from the case; and DHS/DCYF investigators facing surviving Fourth Amendment claims.
What happened
In Mohamed and Hassan v. Walz et al. (Civil No. 25-2930), Somali American childcare center owners Abdikadar Mohamed and Fowsiya Hassan sued Minnesota state officials and agencies, alleging that state investigators targeted their centers based on ethnic bias during a fraud investigation into the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP), used false or misleading information in search warrant affidavits, refused to pay them for services they provided during a suspension period, and retaliated against Hassan after she filed suit. The second amended complaint brought four claims: selective discriminatory enforcement, denial of procedural due process, a Fourth Amendment violation based on false statements in search warrant affidavits, and due process retaliation. State Defendants and investigator Twila Villella moved to dismiss all claims.
The court dismissed Count 1 (selective discriminatory enforcement) in its entirety without prejudice, finding that neither Shireen Gandhi nor Tikki Brown had any personal involvement in the investigations, which began before either of them held their positions. The court also dismissed Counts 2 and 4 against Governor Walz, Gandhi, and Brown in their individual capacities for lack of sufficient personal involvement allegations, and dismissed the request for declaratory and injunctive relief on Count 2 (eliminating official-capacity claims against Walz, John Connolly, and Brown) because plaintiffs failed to show those remedies were necessary given that damages remained available. As a result, Walz, Connolly, Gandhi, Brown, the State, the Minnesota Department of Human Services, and the Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families were all terminated as parties.
Judge Frank denied the motion to dismiss as to Count 3 (the Fourth Amendment claim) against Villella and previously surviving defendant Fetrow, holding that plaintiffs plausibly alleged Villella provided false or misleading information supporting the search warrants and that Villella could not escape liability simply because she did not personally sign the affidavit. The court noted that its earlier qualified immunity ruling — that every reasonable official would know that including false information in a search warrant affidavit violates clearly established rights — applied equally to Villella. Counts 2 and 4 survive only against the unidentified 'Doe' defendants, and Count 3 survives only against Fetrow and Villella.
The detailed version
- Mohamed v. Walz · No. 0:25-cv-02930
- Donovan Frank
- Sept. 1, 2026
Background
Plaintiffs Abdikadar Mohamed and Fowsiya Hassan are Somali Americans who owned and operated childcare centers in Hennepin County, Minnesota, participating in Minnesota's Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP), a state program that helps low-income families pay for childcare. Mohamed owned City Center Childcare Center; Hassan owned Sunshine Child Care Center and had previously owned Sunlight Child Care Center.
Prior to August 2022, Jennifer Fetrow, a Special Agent with Minnesota's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), began investigating the centers for CCAP fraud. On August 23, 2022, BCA agents and Department of Human Services (DHS) employees, supervised by Fetrow, executed search warrants on multiple childcare centers owned by people of East African descent, including City Center and Sunshine. Plaintiffs allege the search warrant affidavits contained false or intentionally misleading information about hidden surveillance cameras, supplied by Fetrow or Twila Villella, a DHS investigator, and that the investigations were opened due to state officials' belief that Somali-owned businesses were automatically suspect.
After the search warrants were executed, CCAP eligibility for both centers was temporarily suspended effective September 1, 2022. Plaintiffs were told to continue services for 14 additional days to allow families time to find alternative care; they ultimately provided 24 days of uncompensated services after being locked out of the CCAP billing system. DHS later refused to pay for those 24 days, citing a statutory one-year deadline for submitting payment claims.
Plaintiffs previously brought a state court lawsuit challenging the indefinite suspension. That case was eventually dismissed as moot by the Minnesota Supreme Court after the BCA closed its investigation without a finding of wrongdoing and DHS lifted the sanctions. After dismissal, DHS still refused to pay for the 24 days of services. Plaintiffs then filed the present federal action. After the federal case was filed, Hassan received notices from the Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) claiming overpayments and disqualifying her from CCAP payments for her previous center, Sunlight, based on six-year-old allegations.
Procedural History
This is the court's ruling on a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint (SAC). The court had previously granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss the original complaint on March 6, 2026. After that ruling, the court allowed amendment. The SAC brings four claims:
- Count 1 — Selective discriminatory enforcement against Gandhi and Brown in their individual capacities.
- Count 2 — Denial of procedural due process (as-applied): declaratory and injunctive relief against Walz, Connolly, and Brown in their official capacities; damages against Walz, Gandhi, Brown, and Doe Defendants individually.
- Count 3 — Fourth Amendment violation (false or misleading search warrant affidavits) against Fetrow, Villella, and Doe Defendants individually.
- Count 4 — Due process retaliation (Hassan only) against Walz, Gandhi, Brown, and Doe Defendants individually.
Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the federal civil rights statute that allows suits against state officials acting under color of state law) are the vehicle for all individual-capacity claims.
Analysis
Legal Standard
The court applied the standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6): a complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face. The court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true but need not accept conclusory allegations or legal conclusions.
Personal Involvement — Counts 1, 2, and 4 (Individual Capacities)
Because respondeat superior (supervisor liability for a subordinate's actions) does not apply to § 1983 claims, a supervisor can only be personally liable if they knew about and facilitated, approved, condoned, or turned a blind eye to the constitutional violation. Mere negligence is insufficient.
Count 1
The court dismissed Count 1 without prejudice as to Gandhi and Brown. DCYF did not exist until July 2024, and Gandhi did not become Temporary Commissioner of DHS until February 2025 — both long after the investigations began. Neither official had any involvement in the decision to investigate plaintiffs' centers. The court also noted that plaintiffs' own footnote suggesting a simple name swap to add former DHS Commissioner Harpstead undermined their argument that the allegations were truly personal to Gandhi or Brown.
Counts 2 and 4
The court dismissed these counts against Walz, Gandhi, and Brown in their individual capacities. The SAC's allegations as to these officials were grouped and conclusory — simply asserting "deliberate indifference" without specifying how each official facilitated, approved, condoned, or ignored the alleged constitutional violations. That is insufficient under § 1983.
Villella (Count 3)
The court found Villella's personal involvement adequately pleaded. Plaintiffs specifically alleged Villella or Fetrow provided false or misleading information in the search warrant affidavits, making her directly responsible for the alleged Fourth Amendment violation.
Count 2 — Due Process (Official Capacities and Remaining Theories)
The court reaffirmed its prior ruling that Count 2 is not claim-precluded (barred by prior litigation) on the specific theory that state officials violated due process by refusing to pay for the 24 days of CCAP-eligible services already provided, after the temporary suspension was lifted. Defendants again failed to adequately address whether payments for services already rendered can constitute a protected property interest under the Due Process Clause, so the motion was denied on that ground.
However, the court dismissed the request for declaratory and injunctive relief (and thus the official-capacity claims against Walz, Connolly, and Brown) as to Count 2. Plaintiffs did not allege they are trying to reopen childcare centers, did not meaningfully explain why equitable relief was necessary when damages remain available, and did not adequately engage the State's mootness argument. Count 2 survives solely against the Doe Defendants.
Count 3 — Fourth Amendment (Villella and Qualified Immunity)
Villella raised qualified immunity (a doctrine shielding government officials from damages unless they violated a clearly established constitutional right) and argued plaintiffs failed to state a claim. The court rejected both arguments, applying its earlier ruling that every reasonable official would know that including false information in a search warrant affidavit violates clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. The court also rejected Villella's argument that she could not be liable because she did not personally sign the affidavit, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), that officers cannot insulate a deliberate misstatement by relaying it through an officer-affiant personally unaware of the falsity. The motion to dismiss Count 3 was denied as to Villella.
The court also dismissed Count 3 against the Doe Defendants, finding no allegations of Fourth Amendment violations by anyone other than Fetrow or Villella.
Party Terminations
Because no claims remain against Walz, Connolly, Gandhi, or Brown in any capacity, and no claims were brought directly against the State, DHS, or DCYF, all of those parties are terminated from the case.
Disposition Summary
- Count 1 (selective discriminatory enforcement): Dismissed without prejudice in its entirety. - Count 2 (due process): Dismissed as to Walz, Gandhi, and Brown individually; dismissed as to official-capacity defendants (declaratory/injunctive relief); survives against Doe Defendants only. - Count 3 (Fourth Amendment): Denied as to Villella; survives against Fetrow (previously surviving) and Villella; dismissed as to Doe Defendants. - Count 4 (retaliation): Dismissed as to Walz, Gandhi, and Brown individually; survives against Doe Defendants. - Terminated parties: Tim Walz, State of Minnesota, John Connolly, Shireen Gandhi, Tikki Brown, Minnesota Department of Human Services, Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families. - Remaining defendants: Jennifer Fetrow (Count 3), Twila Villella (Count 3), and Doe Defendants (Counts 2 and 4).
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.