Khounedaleth v. City of Minneapolis

Background

Khounedaleth alleged that she attended a protest in downtown Minneapolis on May 31, 2020, and remained in her vehicle. Minneapolis had imposed a city-wide curfew beginning at 8:00 p.m. She alleged that, at about 8:10 p.m., police officers stopped her vehicle after allowing two vehicles ahead of her to leave. The officers allegedly approached with their weapons raised, opened her door, pulled her out by her shoulder, threw her to the ground, and used tear gas. She was arrested, taken to the Hennepin County Jail, and cited for unlawful assembly and violating the curfew. The charges were dismissed on July 23, 2020.

The amended complaint asserted ten claims, four of which were at issue in Minneapolis’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). That rule allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The four claims were: Count 4, equal protection based on alleged selective enforcement; Count 5, municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an alleged policy or custom of excessive force; Count 6, a Fourteenth Amendment claim concerning a right to move freely and be present in public; and Count 7, First Amendment claims involving speech and assembly.

Count 4: Selective Enforcement

The court granted the motion as to Count 4. Khounedaleth alleged that officers stopped her because of her race after allowing two other vehicles to leave. To impose § 1983 liability on a municipality based on an unofficial custom, a plaintiff must allege a continuing and widespread pattern of unconstitutional conduct, notice to policymaking officials and their deliberate indifference or tacit authorization, and injury caused by that custom.

Khounedaleth relied on a 2006 report discussing disproportionate vehicle stops and searches of African Americans, including in Minnesota. The court considered the report because the complaint alleged its contents and Minneapolis did not dispute its authenticity. But the court found that Khounedaleth alleged no specific Minneapolis examples showing a pattern of selective enforcement. It also found her allegations that Minneapolis knew about and tolerated race-based selective enforcement conclusory and insufficient.

Count 5: Excessive Force Custom

The court denied the motion as to Count 5. Khounedaleth alleged that Minneapolis police officers had used excessive force against civilians for years without discipline and had used tear gas, less-lethal projectiles, and excessive force against civilians during the period surrounding the curfew. She also alleged multiple incidents of excessive force between 2010 and 2020.

The court concluded that these allegations, accepted as true at the motion-to-dismiss stage, sufficiently alleged a widespread pattern of unconstitutional conduct. It also found sufficient allegations that Minneapolis knew about the officers’ tactics through news reports and social-media posts and was deliberately indifferent by failing to supervise or adequately instruct officers. Finally, the allegations that officers forcibly removed Khounedaleth from her car, pushed her to the ground, and tear-gassed her sufficiently connected her injuries to the alleged municipal custom.

Count 6: Right to Be Present in Public

The court granted the motion as to Count 6. Khounedaleth alleged that the city-wide curfew violated a Fourteenth Amendment right to be present in public. The court explained that the Supreme Court had not clearly established such a right and that the Eighth Circuit had declined to decide whether the Constitution protects a fundamental right to travel within a state. Because the asserted right was not established, the court held that this claim failed.

Count 7: Speech and Assembly

The court denied the motion as to Count 7. Minneapolis argued that the curfew was a reasonable, content-neutral regulation of the time, place, and manner of speech. Such a regulation must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and leave open sufficient alternative ways to communicate.

Khounedaleth alleged that the unrest prompting the curfew was limited to a small area around the Third Precinct, making a city-wide curfew unnecessarily broad. She also alleged that the curfew left few or no alternative avenues for expression, especially for people who worked during the day. Accepting those allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences in her favor, the court held that she adequately stated a First Amendment claim.

Disposition

The court ordered that Minneapolis’s motion to dismiss be granted as to Counts 4 and 6 and denied as to Counts 5 and 7. The opinion does not state any additional disposition of the other claims in the amended complaint.