Lewis v. City of Burnsville

Background

Linda Lewis sued the City of Burnsville, police officers Steven Stoler and Brett Levin, Michelle Frascone, and an unidentified defendant identified as John Smith. Lewis is Jamie Lewis’s mother and the appointed trustee for Jamie’s next of kin. She alleged that Burnsville police officers shot and killed Jamie during a mental-health crisis on September 26, 2016.

Frascone worked for the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and participated in the investigation after the shooting. Lewis alleged that, during an interview with Levin, Frascone suggested that Jamie may have intended to harm other people, not only himself. Lewis alleged that Levin adopted that suggestion in his official report and that the revised account contributed to clearing the officers of wrongdoing.

Lewis asserted several claims against other defendants, but she brought only one claim against Frascone: a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Lewis said the alleged conspiracy was intended to obstruct justice, influence possible federal criminal proceedings, and reduce the likelihood that the officers would be held liable.

Motion to dismiss

Frascone moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which challenges the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which challenges whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court treated the jurisdictional challenge as a facial challenge, meaning it considered the complaint’s factual allegations true when evaluating jurisdiction. It applied the same general approach to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, accepting the allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences for Lewis.

Official-capacity claim

Frascone argued that the Eleventh Amendment barred Lewis’s claim against her in her official capacity. A claim against a state official in that capacity is generally treated as a claim against the official’s state office, and the Eleventh Amendment generally prevents money-damages claims against the state unless an exception applies.

The court recognized that a sufficiently clear request for prospective injunctive relief—an order requiring future action—could avoid that immunity under the circumstances. Lewis specifically requested an order requiring the City to train its officers, not an order directed to Frascone or the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Her general request for other just and proper relief could arguably include an injunction, but the court concluded that this did not save the claim.

The court held that Lewis lacked standing to seek prospective relief against Frascone. The alleged wrongdoing concerned a past, discrete event and did not show a real and immediate threat that Lewis would personally suffer the same injury in the future from Bureau investigations. The official-capacity claim was therefore barred either by Eleventh Amendment immunity or by lack of standing.

Individual-capacity claim

For the individual-capacity claim, Frascone argued that Lewis had not plausibly alleged a personal injury or deprivation of a federally protected right caused by the alleged conspiracy. The court considered Lewis’s arguments that the conspiracy deprived her or Jamie of a right not to have evidence manufactured and of a right to seek civil redress.

The court rejected the manufactured-evidence theory. It explained that the precedent Lewis cited involved manufactured evidence later used to prosecute the person whose due-process rights were affected. Neither Lewis nor Jamie was prosecuted in connection with the shooting, and Lewis alleged that the evidence was used to justify not prosecuting the officers. The court concluded that Lewis had not identified a constitutional right violated by the alleged conduct.

The court also rejected Lewis’s argument that she was deprived of a right to seek civil redress. Lewis was able to bring and litigate this federal lawsuit, so the court found that she had not been denied that right. The court further noted that, even if Lewis’s theory about manufactured evidence were recognized, Frascone would at minimum have qualified immunity because the asserted right was not clearly established when the interview occurred.

Disposition

The court ordered that Michelle Frascone’s motion to dismiss the claims against her was granted. The opinion did not state whether the resulting dismissal was with or without prejudice.