Corrigan v. City of Savage

Background

John L. Corrigan, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of Savage; several Savage police officers; Amber Bernier, a private individual; Scott County; county officials; a prosecutor; a judge; and a probation officer. He asserted federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law claims.

The lawsuit arose from an August 3, 2016 incident. After Corrigan’s car nearly collided with Bernier’s car, Corrigan deliberately followed Bernier for about 15 minutes and continued following her to a police-station parking lot after she said she would call the police. Officers questioned Corrigan and cited him for fifth-degree assault. The charge was later amended to stalking. A jury found Corrigan guilty, Judge Christian Wilton sentenced him to 120 days in jail, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. The Minnesota Supreme Court denied further review.

Proceedings Before the District Court

Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson recommended granting four defense motions and dismissing Corrigan’s amended complaint. The recommendation called for the federal constitutional claims to be dismissed with prejudice and the state-law claims to be dismissed without prejudice. Corrigan objected. Judge Montgomery reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation independently, overruled the objection, and adopted the recommendation.

Court’s Reasoning

The court rejected Corrigan’s claim that the officers unlawfully arrested him. It determined that the officers conducted a temporary investigative stop and issued a citation, rather than making a formal arrest. Corrigan did not allege that officers told him he was under arrest, handcuffed him, or otherwise physically confined him. The court further stated that, even if Corrigan had been arrested, federal and Minnesota law did not require the misdemeanor to have occurred in an officer’s presence for the officers to act. The court also agreed that probable cause supported the citation, charge, and prosecution.

The court held that the rule from Heck v. Humphrey barred Corrigan’s § 1983 claims when success on those claims would necessarily imply that his still-valid conviction or sentence was invalid. Corrigan had not shown that his conviction or sentence had been reversed, expunged, invalidated, or called into question by a federal court’s order. The court stated that this rule applied whether or not he was still incarcerated and did not depend on whether the arrest was made with or without a warrant. It also held that Corrigan’s constitutional challenge to Minnesota’s stalking statute was an attack on his conviction and was therefore barred.

The court held that Bernier was protected by absolute immunity for claims based on her trial testimony and that Prosecutor Nelson Rhodus was protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity for initiating the prosecution, presenting the state’s case, and preparing a witness for trial. Judge Christian Wilton was protected by absolute judicial immunity because he acted within his jurisdiction. The court also agreed that Corrigan had not plausibly alleged due-process or Eighth Amendment claims against Judge Wilton.

As to the Savage City Defendants, the court rejected Corrigan’s First Amendment retaliation claim because it depended on his incorrect assertion that he had been arrested. It rejected his claim based on the lack of a Miranda warning because the officers conducted a temporary investigative stop, not custodial interrogation. The court also rejected the claim against the City of Savage under Monell v. Department of Social Services, reasoning that Corrigan had not alleged a constitutional violation by a city officer and therefore could not establish municipal liability. Without a viable claim, the court held that discovery was inappropriate.

Finally, the court held that Probation Officer Lynn Hanson was protected by absolute quasi-judicial immunity for preparing the presentence investigation report. The report was closely connected to the judge’s sentencing function, and Judge Wilton had ordered it for use in sentencing.

Disposition

The court ordered that: (1) Corrigan’s objection was overruled; (2) the report and recommendation was adopted; (3) Judge Wilton’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted; (4) the Savage City Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted; (5) the Scott County Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted; and (6) Bernier’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted. Corrigan’s amended complaint was dismissed in its entirety. Counts I through VI were dismissed with prejudice, and Count VII was dismissed without prejudice.