Rassier v. Sanner
- Donovan Frank
- 0:17-cv-00938
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 18
In Rassier v. Sanner, Judge Frank granted defendants’ motion and dismissed with prejudice the remaining retaliation, emotional-distress, defamation, and municipal-liability claims as untimely.
Daniel A. Rassier and Rita Rassier’s remaining claims were dismissed with prejudice; the defendants’ motion was granted.
What happened
In Rassier v. Sanner, Daniel A. Rassier and Rita Rassier sued John L. Sanner, Pam Jensen, Ken McDonald, and Stearns County, Minnesota. The remaining claims concerned Dan Rassier’s being labeled a person of interest in the Jacob Wetterling investigation, including retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and related municipal liability.
The court concluded that the claims arose in 2010, when Sanner labeled Dan Rassier a person of interest and Rassier knew he believed the labeling was retaliatory. The court rejected the argument that the claims began only in 2016, after Danny Heinrich confessed, and found that equitable tolling did not apply.
Judge Donovan W. Frank granted defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment and dismissed all remaining claims with prejudice. The court also declined to address defendants’ alternative arguments because the statute of limitations barred the claims.
The detailed version
- Rassier v. Sanner · No. 0:17-cv-00938
- Donovan Frank
- Mar. 6, 2020
Background
Daniel A. Rassier and Rita Rassier sued John L. Sanner, Pam Jensen, Ken McDonald, and Stearns County, Minnesota, over alleged wrongs arising from Dan Rassier’s being labeled a person of interest in the investigation of Jacob Wetterling’s kidnapping. The remaining claims were First Amendment retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and municipal liability that paralleled the retaliation claim. The court had previously dismissed other claims based on alleged unlawful searches in 2010. It had also previously dismissed all claims against McDonald with prejudice.
Defendants moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment on all remaining claims. They argued that the claims were time-barred, that Rassier could not establish required elements, and that they were protected by qualified immunity or privilege.
Statute of limitations
The court held that the First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was subject to a six-year statute of limitations. The state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation were subject to two-year limitations periods.
The court determined that the claims accrued in 2010. The retaliation claim accrued when Sanner labeled Dan Rassier a person of interest; the defamation claim accrued when the statement was published; and the emotional-distress claim accrued when the alleged wrongful conduct occurred. The court rejected Rassier’s argument that the claims accrued in 2016, when Danny Heinrich confessed in open court. According to the court, the claims concerned the alleged retaliatory labeling, and resolving them did not depend on learning Heinrich’s identity or reviewing the search warrants.
The court also rejected equitable tolling, which can extend a filing deadline when a person pursued rights diligently but an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. The court found that Rassier believed by July 2010 that he was being retaliated against for statements he made to Patty Wetterling. The record also showed that he raised that belief in 2011 and 2012, but he did not file this action until March 29, 2017. The court found no record evidence creating a genuine dispute about whether he pursued his rights diligently or whether an extraordinary circumstance prevented an earlier filing.
Ruling
Judge Donovan W. Frank found that the remaining claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Because the municipal-liability claim paralleled the retaliation claim, it was also untimely. The court declined to reach defendants’ alternative arguments for dismissal.
The court granted defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment. It dismissed all remaining claims in the Amended Complaint with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 18-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.