Berry v. Hennepin County

Background

The plaintiffs were nine individuals experiencing unsheltered homelessness in Hennepin County and ZACAH, a private nonprofit organization that assists Minnesota residents at risk of homelessness. They alleged that Hennepin County, Sheriff David Hutchinson, and other defendants conducted encampment sweeps in Minneapolis public parks, seizing and destroying property belonging to people living in the encampments. The amended complaint asserted five counts involving federal and Minnesota constitutional rights and Minnesota conversion law.

The County Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing, that Sheriff Hutchinson had qualified immunity in his individual capacity, and that the complaint failed to state claims. They also challenged the request for punitive damages.

Standing

The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of standing. It held that ZACAH plausibly alleged an injury because it spent approximately $113,000 and 50 to 60 hours per week securing emergency hotel rooms for people displaced by the sweeps, resources that otherwise could have supported its organizational mission. The court also found sufficient traceability for the individual plaintiffs because the complaint alleged that Sheriff Hutchinson approved or assisted with clearances and that county deputies were present during three encampment clearances. The court concluded that ZACAH’s injury was likely redressable because preventing the County Defendants from removing people from encampments could reduce ZACAH’s need to provide emergency hotel rooms.

Federal Claims and Municipal Liability

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal constitutional claims against the County Defendants because the complaint did not adequately plead municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 permits claims for constitutional violations caused by state or local officials acting under state authority, but a county cannot be held responsible solely because it employs the alleged wrongdoer. The plaintiffs did not identify an official county policy, establish that Sheriff Hutchinson was a final policymaker, or allege facts showing that county policymakers knew about, authorized, or deliberately ignored a continuing pattern of unconstitutional conduct.

Qualified Immunity

The court granted the motion based on qualified immunity to the extent the plaintiffs sought damages from Sheriff Hutchinson in his individual capacity. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from civil damages unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established in sufficiently similar circumstances. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ cited cases did not provide sufficiently similar precedent to give Hutchinson fair warning that his alleged conduct involving the property, privacy, and due-process rights at issue was unlawful.

State-Law Property and Due-Process Claims

The court denied dismissal of the Minnesota constitutional claims concerning unlawful seizure of property in Counts I and II. Although it concluded that the plaintiffs did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in tents unlawfully erected on public land, it distinguished temporary interference with property from permanent destruction. Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, the court found that the County Defendants could have cleared the encampments without permanently destroying personal belongings, including important documents and irreplaceable personal effects. The court therefore found the state-law seizure claims plausible.

The court also denied dismissal of Count III, the procedural-due-process claim. The complaint alleged that the County Defendants seized and destroyed property without adequate notice, an opportunity to be heard, or a pre- or post-deprivation process for challenging or reclaiming the property. The court concluded that the availability of a possible state-law remedy did not resolve the claim because the County Defendants did not argue that advance procedures were impossible or impracticable.

Substantive Due Process

The court dismissed Count IV in all respects. It declined to analyze the property allegations under substantive due process because the alleged conduct was more specifically addressed by protections against unreasonable seizure and by procedural due process. It dismissed the privacy-based theory because the plaintiffs did not identify a recognized fundamental right to sleep or erect structures on public land when no alternative existed. It also dismissed the state-created-danger theory because the complaint did not allege that the state created the dangers posed by inclement weather or the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conversion and Punitive Damages

The court denied dismissal of Count V, the Minnesota conversion claim. Conversion involves intentional interference with personal property that deprives someone entitled to it of use or possession. The court found the claim plausible because the plaintiffs alleged that County Defendants assisted with the encampment clearances and that the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board said it could not have completed the clearances without that assistance.

The court also denied the motion to dismiss the state-law punitive-damages claims. It concluded that the type of relief requested did not determine whether the underlying pleaded claims could proceed and therefore did not address the County Defendants’ arguments about the propriety of punitive damages at this stage.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright ordered that the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The plaintiffs’ federal-law claims against the County Defendants were dismissed; Count IV was dismissed; and the motion was denied in all other respects. The order did not state that any dismissal was with or without prejudice.