Lewis v. City of Burnsville

Background

Linda Lewis, individually and as the appointed trustee for Jamie Lewis’s next of kin, sued the City of Burnsville, Steven Stoler, Brett Levin, and John Smith. She alleged that Burnsville police officers violated Jamie’s constitutional rights when they shot and killed him during a mental-health crisis. The complaint asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an unreasonable seizure, a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and two Minnesota negligence claims. The individual defendants were sued in their official and individual capacities. Michelle Frascone had previously been dismissed.

The officers received reports that Jamie was suicidal, had a gun and ammunition, had said he would not return to prison, and would fight if police tried to stop him. When Stoler and Levin found him, they saw him holding what they believed was a handgun. They repeatedly ordered him to show his hands and drop the gun. According to the officers, Jamie then sat up and pointed the gun at them. Stoler fired seven rounds. Jamie died after sustaining three gunshot wounds. A silver handgun was found near his shoulder, with a beer bottle slightly on top of it.

Constitutional claim

The court analyzed Linda’s § 1983 claim against Stoler in his individual capacity under the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures. It applied qualified immunity, which generally protects an officer unless the evidence shows both a constitutional violation and violation of a right that was clearly established at the time.

The court held that the undisputed material facts established no Fourth Amendment violation. Considering the information known before the encounter, Jamie’s failure to follow orders, and Stoler’s belief that Jamie pointed a firearm at him and Levin, the court found the use of deadly force objectively reasonable. The court rejected arguments that the officers had decided to use deadly force before the encounter, that Jamie’s suicidal state alone justified the shooting, or that disputes about Jamie’s intent and what he held required a trial. The relevant question was what the officers reasonably believed when Stoler fired.

The court also held that, even if the shooting had violated Jamie’s Fourth Amendment rights, the right was not clearly established under the circumstances. Linda did not identify a case giving officers fair warning that using deadly force against a person who appeared to point a loaded gun at officers was unlawful.

The court separately rejected the official-capacity claim against Stoler and the claim against Burnsville. An official-capacity claim is treated as a claim against the government entity. The court stated that a city cannot be liable under § 1983 merely because an employee violated a policy. Linda argued that officers violated Burnsville policies, but she did not present an argument that an official city policy, custom, or inadequate training caused a constitutional injury. To the extent the complaint asserted a Fourteenth Amendment claim, the court held that the claim was waived or failed as a matter of law.

State-law negligence claims

The court held that Stoler and Levin were protected by Minnesota official immunity. That protection applies to public officials performing discretionary duties unless they commit a willful or malicious wrong. The court determined that police officers’ responses to a mental-health crisis and decisions about using force were discretionary. It also found that the Burnsville policies described guidelines and called for officer judgment rather than imposing mandatory procedures applicable to these facts.

The court concluded that the officers were entitled to official immunity because the constitutional analysis showed that their conduct was reasonable and that they did not violate a known right. The City of Burnsville was also entitled to vicarious official immunity for the negligence claim based on the officers’ conduct. The court further held that Minnesota law does not recognize a negligent-training claim, requiring dismissal of Count IV.

Other claims and disposition

Linda conceded that the conspiracy claim, Count II, should be dismissed for the reasons given in the earlier order dismissing Frascone. The court stated in a footnote that this also disposed of the only claim against John Smith, whose identity was unknown.

The court ordered:

- The City of Burnsville, Stoler, and Levin’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED. - The defendants’ motion to exclude Dr. John Cronin’s testimony was DENIED as moot. - Linda Lewis’s motion to exclude experts was DENIED as moot. - The action was DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Judge Eric C. Tostrud directed that judgment be entered accordingly.