Aery v. Cremens

Background

James Paul Aery, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Connor Cremens, a Dakota County prosecutor, in both his individual and official capacities. Aery alleged that Cremens violated the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and asserted state-law claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and negligence related to his loss of two jobs.

The claims arose from Aery’s May 20, 2018 arrest by Apple Valley police after an officer found suspected drug paraphernalia and suspected drugs during a search. Aery was later charged with possession of a controlled substance. At a state-court hearing on Aery’s motion to suppress the drug-related evidence, Cremens appeared for the state. The state court granted Aery’s motion after finding the search impermissible and rejecting Cremens’s argument that the evidence would inevitably have been discovered. The state court then dismissed the criminal complaint.

Report and Recommendation

A magistrate judge recommended granting Cremens’s motion to dismiss. The recommendation concluded that absolute immunity protected Cremens from the federal and state claims asserted against him individually. It also concluded that Aery had not stated a plausible § 1983 claim against Cremens in his official capacity, recommended dismissing that claim without prejudice, and recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction over the official-capacity state-law claims. The magistrate judge also recommended denying Aery’s request for permission to amend because Aery had not filed a proper motion or proposed amended complaint.

Aery objected to the recommendation. Judge Tunheim reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation under the standard requiring an independent review of properly raised objections.

Individual-Capacity Claims

The court construed Aery’s federal claim as challenging Cremens’s signing and filing of the criminal complaint, even though Cremens did not search Aery or arrest him. The court held that preparing, signing, and filing a criminal complaint are prosecutorial functions. Absolute immunity therefore barred Aery’s § 1983 claim against Cremens individually. The court dismissed that claim with prejudice.

The court also held that absolute immunity barred Aery’s individual-capacity state-law claims. The claims for false imprisonment and negligence were construed as arising from Cremens’s filing of the criminal complaint. The false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims were construed as arising from Cremens’s appearance and arguments at the probable-cause hearing. The court concluded that all of this conduct was connected to the prosecutorial or judicial phase of the criminal case. It therefore dismissed the individual-capacity state-law claims with prejudice.

Official-Capacity Claims

An official-capacity claim is treated as a claim against the government entity for which the official works. The court explained that such a § 1983 claim generally requires facts showing that the entity’s policy or custom violated the plaintiff’s rights, or that the entity failed to train or supervise its employees with deliberate indifference.

The court held that prosecutorial immunity did not by itself defeat Aery’s official-capacity § 1983 claim. But Aery had not alleged facts showing that Dakota County created, adopted, or supported an unconstitutional policy or custom, or failed to train or supervise its prosecutors in the required manner. The court therefore dismissed the official-capacity § 1983 claim without prejudice because the problem was a pleading failure rather than a legal rule that permanently barred the claim.

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over Aery’s official-capacity state-law claims. It dismissed those claims without prejudice.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court denied Aery’s request for permission to amend. Aery had not filed a motion for leave to amend or submitted a proposed amended complaint, which prevented Cremens from meaningfully responding to the request. The court stated that Aery could file another action to reassert claims dismissed without prejudice and correct the identified pleading problems.

Judge John R. Tunheim overruled Aery’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s January 28, 2021 Report and Recommendation, and granted Cremens’s motion to dismiss. The action was dismissed as follows: the individual-capacity claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the official-capacity claims were dismissed without prejudice. The court also denied Aery’s request for permission to amend.