Arashiba v. City of Minneapolis
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:20-cv-00579
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Arashiba v. City of Minneapolis, Judge Magnuson denied Arashiba’s motion to amend because proposed First Amendment and Monell claims were futile.
Andrew Arashiba was not permitted to add the proposed claims or join Michael Mays and Aimee Linson as defendants. The City of Minneapolis remained the defendant named in the case.
What happened
Andrew Arashiba asked to add two claims to his complaint and to join Minneapolis police officers Michael Mays and Aimee Linson as defendants. The City of Minneapolis opposed the request, so Arashiba needed the court’s permission to amend.
The court agreed that the proposed First Amendment retaliation claim was not legally plausible because Arashiba made the statements as a public employee performing official duties, rather than as a private citizen. It also agreed that his proposed claim against the City was insufficient because it did not identify specific police-department policies or customs that caused his termination. The proposed claim against Mays and Linson was based on the same unsuccessful retaliation claim.
After reviewing Arashiba’s objections, Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied Arashiba’s Motion to Amend the Complaint. The court concluded that amendment would be futile.
The detailed version
- Arashiba v. City of Minneapolis · No. 0:20-cv-00579
- Paul Magnuson
- Feb. 26, 2021
Background
Andrew Arashiba moved for permission to amend his complaint to add two claims and join Minneapolis police officers Michael Mays and Aimee Linson as defendants. Because the City of Minneapolis opposed the motion, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) required leave of court. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion as futile, meaning the proposed amendment would not state claims that could proceed. Arashiba objected to that recommendation.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which Arashiba specifically objected. It rejected his proposed First Amendment retaliation claim. Arashiba alleged that he reported what he believed was excessive force, spoke about a matter of public concern, and was retaliated against. The court held that his statements were not protected by the First Amendment because he made them as a public employee carrying out official duties. The opinion states that Minneapolis police officers are required to report such concerns and that Arashiba acknowledged this requirement.
The court also rejected Arashiba’s proposed Monell claim against the City. A Monell claim seeks to hold a municipality responsible for harm caused by its policies or customs. The court concluded that the claim was futile because there was no viable First Amendment retaliation claim for it to support. Separately, the court agreed that Arashiba had not identified specific Minneapolis Police Department policies or customs that caused his termination. It found that his allegation of an unwritten policy punishing officers who report misconduct was too vague and differed from the type of allegation that had potentially supported a claim in the earlier decision he cited.
The court further rejected Arashiba’s request to join Mays and Linson under Rule 20(a)(2). The only proposed claim against them was the First Amendment retaliation claim, which the court found legally insufficient. The court therefore concluded that adding them as defendants would be frivolous.
Disposition
After conducting the required review, the court adopted the Report and Recommendation. Judge Paul A. Magnuson ordered that Arashiba’s Motion to Amend the Complaint was DENIED.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.