Goyette v. City of Minneapolis

Background

Jared Goyette, described as a freelance journalist, filed a proposed class action against the City of Minneapolis and individual and official-capacity defendants associated with Minneapolis and Minnesota law enforcement. He challenged law enforcement’s treatment of members of the news media reporting on events in Minneapolis after George Floyd’s death.

Goyette alleged that law enforcement officers arrested, threatened, shot with rubber bullets, or exposed members of the news media to chemical irritants after they identified themselves as members of the press. He described an incident in which he was hit in the head by a projectile while covering protests near the Minneapolis Police Department’s 3rd Precinct. His initial complaint asserted three claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights, unlawful seizure and excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, and violations of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Goyette filed motions for a temporary restraining order and class certification. The opinion states that an amended complaint adding Craig Lassig and The Communications Workers of America was filed on June 8, 2020, but the court did not consider that amended complaint for these motions because defendants had not had a fair opportunity to address it.

Temporary Restraining Order

Goyette sought an order preventing defendants from using chemical agents, physical force including less-lethal projectiles, arrests or detention without probable cause, and threatening language or gestures against people who identified themselves as news-media members or were reasonably identifiable as gathering news. His requested restrictions would not have applied when a news-media member presented an imminent threat of violence, bodily harm, or property damage.

The court applied the four factors used for temporary injunctive relief: irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, the balance of harms, and the public interest. It began with irreparable harm, which means harm that cannot be adequately remedied through damages and is sufficiently certain and imminent to require court intervention.

The court concluded that Goyette had not met that requirement. He did not allege that the conduct he sought to stop had occurred since May 31, 2020, or provide facts showing that it was likely to recur imminently. Declarations from Minnesota State Patrol Colonel Matthew Langer and Minneapolis Police Department Commander Scott Gerlicher stated that the Minnesota State Patrol and the Minneapolis Police Department had not used chemical irritants or less-lethal munitions since May 31, and those assertions were uncontroverted. The court also noted that Goyette’s brief did not address the irreparable-harm factor and that speculative future risks were insufficient.

The court recognized the importance of freedom of speech and freedom of the press and the seriousness of the allegations. It also noted that the Minneapolis City Council had voluntarily entered into a temporary restraining order with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights concerning review of officer conduct and authorization for certain crowd-control weapons. Nevertheless, the court held that Goyette had not shown that the extraordinary relief he requested was necessary at that time. It therefore denied without prejudice Goyette’s motion for a temporary restraining order.

Class Certification

Goyette proposed a class consisting of members of the news media who intended to engage in news gathering or reporting in Minnesota about the protests following George Floyd’s death and law enforcement’s response. The court noted that Goyette had not defined “news media” or “news gathering or reporting activities,” and that the proposed class could require individualized inquiries into each person’s future intentions.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a party seeking class certification must show, among other things, that the proposed class is numerous enough that joining members individually would be impracticable, that common legal or factual questions exist, that the representative’s claims are typical, and that the representative will adequately protect the class’s interests. The court stated that this requires a rigorous analysis that may involve looking beyond the pleadings.

The court agreed that fact discovery was necessary before it could determine whether Goyette’s claims could be resolved on a class-wide basis. It emphasized that class certification is often not properly decided from the pleadings alone and that the amended complaint had been filed the morning of the hearing after briefing was complete. The court therefore denied without prejudice Goyette’s motion for class certification.

Disposition and Scope

The court denied without prejudice both of Jared Goyette’s motions: the motion for a temporary restraining order and the motion for class certification. The opinion did not decide the merits of Goyette’s constitutional claims or determine whether the alleged law-enforcement conduct violated the Constitution.