Foster v. Litman

Background

Bradley W. Foster sued Ross Litman and Mark Phinney over Foster’s August 3, 2015 transport to the St. Louis County Courthouse. Foster alleged that Phinney transported him in a vehicle without seatbelts or padding while Foster was restrained in a waist chain and leg-irons, including during the court proceeding, and that this caused significant ankle injuries. The defendants initially answered in their official capacities and later answered in their individual capacities.

The court’s pretrial scheduling order set May 28, 2019, as the deadline for amending pleadings and adding parties. Foster did not ask to extend that deadline. After the court issued a recommendation that several of his claims be dismissed, Foster objected and moved to file a first amended complaint on February 12, 2020. Judge Ericksen later adopted the recommendation and accepted its recommended disposition. The present order concerns only Foster’s motion to amend.

Legal standards

The court considered Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 16 and the District of Minnesota’s local rules. Rule 15 generally allows amendment when justice requires, but amendment may be denied for reasons including undue delay, prejudice, or futility. An amendment is futile when the proposed complaint could not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Because Foster filed his motion after the scheduling-order deadline, Rule 16 also required him to show good cause. The main measure of good cause is the moving party’s diligence in trying to meet the deadline. A scheduling order may be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.

Analysis

Untimeliness and lack of diligence. Foster argued that his discovery efforts and his confinement established good cause. The court found that the proposed amendments did not depend on new facts or requests for relief that had become available only later. According to the court, Foster could have included the amendments in his original complaint or could have corrected the alleged defects after the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings in May 2019. The court also found that nothing prevented him from adding a punitive-damages claim before the May 28, 2019 deadline. Because Foster waited until February 2020 and was not diligent, the court denied the motion on that basis.

Proposed Minnesota statutory claims. The court found that any proposed claims under Minnesota law brought through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 would be futile because violations of state law do not by themselves establish a claim under that federal statute. The court also found that Minnesota Statutes § 253B.03 did not provide a private cause of action for Foster’s proposed claim. It found that Minnesota Statute § 609.2325, a criminal statute concerning abuse of a vulnerable adult, likewise did not expressly or clearly create a private civil claim. The court stated that the definitions in Minnesota Statute § 626.5572 did not themselves provide a cause of action for the facts alleged.

Proposed Minnesota constitutional claims. The proposed amended complaint repeated an equal-protection claim under Article I, Section 2, of the Minnesota Constitution. The court found that Foster still did not plausibly allege that similarly situated people were treated differently. It also found that the proposed due-process claim under Article I, Section 7, was futile because, as the court understood the governing law, there was no private cause of action for violations of the Minnesota Constitution.

Fourth Amendment claims. The court found that Foster’s proposed Fourth Amendment claims were futile for the reasons given in the earlier recommendation adopted by Judge Ericksen. Because Foster was civilly committed, the court stated that excessive-force and deliberate-indifference claims concerning his treatment arose under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause rather than the Fourth Amendment. The court stated that the Fourth Amendment claims had already been dismissed with prejudice in the earlier ruling.

Claims against Sheriff Litman. Foster added allegations concerning Litman’s responsibility for training, policies, supervision, vehicles, restraints, and the treatment of civil detainees. The court nevertheless found that the proposed complaint did not plausibly allege that Litman knew of a pattern of unconstitutional acts by Phinney or other deputies involving the transport or restraint of civil detainees. The court therefore found the proposed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 supervisory-liability claims against Litman futile.

The court also stated that, because the state-law claims had been dismissed and the proposed state-law claims were futile, there was no basis for Foster’s proposed punitive-damages claim under Minnesota law.

Disposition

The court ordered that Foster’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, docket number 68, was DENIED. The order did not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice. Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright signed the order on May 29, 2020.