Marks v. Bauer

Background

Marks alleged that, on May 28, 2020, a Minneapolis police officer fired a tear-gas canister into his face from close range during a community cleanup event following protests after George Floyd’s death. Marks alleged that he was unarmed and posed no observable threat. The canister struck his right eye, causing a ruptured eye globe, fractures, retinal and corneal damage, a concussion, and likely permanent vision loss.

Marks brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations committed by government officials. The motion at issue was filed by the City of Minneapolis and Police Chief Medaria Arradondo. Marks asserted a municipal-liability claim against the City and Arradondo in his official capacity, alleging that Minneapolis had an unofficial custom of permitting excessive force and that Arradondo endorsed that custom by failing to discipline officers consistently. Marks also asserted an individual supervisory-liability claim against Arradondo.

Municipal-Liability Claim

A municipality generally cannot be held responsible under § 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly violated the Constitution. Instead, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that the violation resulted from an official policy, an unofficial custom, or a deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise.

The court held that Marks had plausibly alleged an unofficial custom of excessive force against protesters. Marks alleged that Minneapolis officers used tear gas and other projectiles against protesters in the days after George Floyd’s death; that Minneapolis council members publicly criticized the police department’s use of force before Marks was injured; and that, three days after Marks’s injury, another protester was subjected to allegedly similar force. The court found those allegations minimally sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage to suggest a continuing and sufficiently widespread pattern.

The court also held that Marks plausibly alleged that City officials had notice of the alleged misconduct and were deliberately indifferent to it. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss as to the municipal-liability claim in Count V.

Individual Supervisory-Liability Claim

For individual supervisory liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the supervisor personally participated in the violation or had direct responsibility for it, including through inadequate supervision or training.

The court concluded that Marks had not adequately done so. Marks did not allege that Arradondo was present when the tear-gas canister was fired, personally trained the officers involved, or directly supervised them. The court found that Arradondo’s general responsibility for supervising Minneapolis police officers was not enough to support an individual-capacity claim.

The court dismissed Marks’s claim against Arradondo in his individual capacity without prejudice.

Disposition

The court ordered that the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The municipal-liability claim in Count V remained pending, while Marks’s individual-capacity supervisory-liability claim against Arradondo was dismissed without prejudice.