Cullars-Doty v. City of St. Paul

Background

The plaintiffs brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning the January 14, 2015 fatal shooting of Marcus Ryan Cullars Golden by St. Paul police officers Jeremy Doverspike and Daniel Peck. The plaintiffs initially proceeded without lawyers; counsel appeared in June 2021.

The plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint. The proposed amendment primarily reframed Count II as a Minnesota wrongful-death claim against Doverspike and Peck. The proposed complaint alleged that Golden drove unarmed to an apartment complex, remained in his vehicle, and was shot when he attempted to drive around the officers. It alleged that the officers intentionally fired at him even though he posed no threat of death or harm to them or others. It alternatively alleged that they committed an eminently dangerous act without regard for his life.

The proposed complaint also alleged that Monique Cassandra Cullars-Doty had been appointed trustee for Golden’s heirs and kin. The court found that allegation sufficient, subject to the defendants’ other arguments, to establish her standing to bring the wrongful-death claim.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), courts generally should allow a complaint to be amended when justice requires. Leave may be denied for reasons including undue delay, bad faith, unfair prejudice, or futility. An amendment is futile if the proposed complaint could not survive a motion to dismiss under the rule requiring a plausible claim for relief.

Analysis

The defendants argued that the proposed wrongful-death claim was time-barred. Minnesota’s wrongful-death statute generally requires an action to be brought within three years after death, but it allows an action for a death caused by an intentional act constituting murder to be brought at any time after the death. The court held that this exception does not require a prior criminal conviction or other prior legal determination of murder. It therefore declined to find the proposed claim futile on statute-of-limitations grounds, including because requiring trustee appointment within three years for a murder-based claim could make the statutory exception meaningless.

The defendants also argued that murder could not be determined in a civil wrongful-death case and that the officers’ use of deadly force defeated the claim. The court rejected the argument that a wrongful-death action based on an intentional act constituting murder could not be brought against law-enforcement officers. It explained that the plaintiffs would not need to prove criminal charges in the civil action and that civil liability uses a lower proof standard than a criminal case.

The court treated official immunity and Minnesota’s authorized-use-of-deadly-force statute as affirmative defenses. An affirmative defense is a defense that can defeat liability even if the complaint adequately alleges a claim. The court concluded that the proposed complaint did not establish from its face that the officers’ use of deadly force was justified or that they were entitled to official immunity. In particular, the pleadings did not establish what Doverspike and Peck knew when they shot Golden. The court noted that the officers could later seek summary judgment if discovery supported those defenses.

The court also found that the proposed complaint adequately alleged the elements of second-degree intentional murder for purposes of the pleading standard: causing a person’s death and intending to cause that person’s or another person’s death without premeditation. The court did not find bad faith in the plaintiffs’ changes to allegations from the initial complaint, which had been filed without lawyers. It also concluded that the proposed amendments were not futile despite disputes about the 911 call and the officers’ account of the shooting.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend. It ordered them to file and serve a second amended complaint substantially in the form of the proposed amended complaint by December 24, 2021, and directed the defendants to respond under the applicable federal and local rules. The order did not decide ultimate liability or whether the wrongful-death claim would succeed.