Glover v. City of St. Paul Police

Background

Wilbert Glover, representing himself, sued the City of Saint Paul Police Department, Charles Ankney, Benjamin Buchin, Nicole Spears, and Anthony Dean. He sought $5,700,000 under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for certain violations of constitutional rights by state or local officials.

The claims arose from Glover’s arrest during a police investigation of a reported kidnapping and sexual assault. Officers found a house that appeared consistent with the victim’s description and learned that mail at the house was addressed to Glover. They later saw a Cadillac registered to Glover and questioned him. Glover appeared to match a general description connected to the house, although a neighbor did not positively identify him.

Glover alleged that the officers used racist epithets during the arrest and transportation to police headquarters. He also alleged that an officer did not read him the required warnings before questioning him and that one officer threatened that he should be killed in jail.

Procedural history and issues

The defendants moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over facts that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion. Glover objected, arguing that there was no probable cause and that additional evidence could show the officers used racist epithets.

Court’s analysis

The court overruled Glover’s probable-cause objection because state courts had already determined that probable cause existed for his arrest. The court held that Glover could not relitigate that issue in this civil case.

The court separately considered the alleged racist epithets. It recognized that the alleged language was reprehensible, but held that, even if the allegations were proven, the insults would not support a § 1983 claim without facts showing force or injury. The court therefore rejected Glover’s objection on that issue as well.

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its authority to hear related state-law claims, over Glover’s remaining Minnesota Human Rights Act claims.

Disposition

Judge John R. Tunheim overruled Glover’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed Glover’s federal claims with prejudice and dismissed his Minnesota Human Rights Act claims without prejudice. The opinion stated that Glover could choose to refile the state-law claims in state court within the applicable limitations period as extended by federal tolling law.