DeShane v. City of Minneapolis

Background

Laura DeShane alleged that she followed and recorded a protest march in Minneapolis on November 3, 2020. After police began making arrests, DeShane alleged that Minneapolis police officers Joseph Fonseca and Tyler Nothnagel arrested her and placed tight handcuffs on her. She said her hand began going numb and that she complained to Hennepin County sheriff’s deputy Carrie Nyblom. According to the complaint, Nyblom told deputy Hal Haliburton about the complaint, but neither deputy assisted DeShane for about 30 minutes.

DeShane asserted seven causes of action. The Hennepin Defendants—Hennepin County, Nyblom, and Haliburton—asked the court to dismiss Counts 2, 5, and 7. DeShane separately sought partial summary judgment on Count 7, her deliberate-indifference claim.

Motion to Dismiss

The court applied the standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which asks whether the complaint alleges enough specific facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court accepted factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but did not accept conclusory statements as facts.

Count 2: Negligence

DeShane alleged that Nyblom and Haliburton breached a duty of reasonable care by failing to respond to her complaint about the handcuffs, and that Hennepin County was responsible for the deputies’ conduct. The court dismissed this count because DeShane did not adequately allege an actual injury, a duty that the deputies owed her, or how they breached that duty. The court did not decide whether official immunity also barred the claim.

Count 5: Retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

DeShane alleged that Nyblom and Haliburton retaliated against her for following and recording the protest and police activity, conduct she described as protected by the First Amendment. The court concluded that she had not alleged enough facts to show that the deputies’ failure to address her complaint would chill an ordinarily firm person from engaging in protected activity. It also found insufficient allegations that she was singled out because of her protected activity or that the deputies’ alleged retaliatory motive caused her injury. The court dismissed Count 5 as insufficiently pleaded and did not reach the defendants’ other arguments, including qualified immunity and the absence of an alleged county policy or custom.

Count 7: Deliberate Indifference

DeShane alleged under the Fourteenth Amendment that Nyblom and Haliburton deliberately ignored a serious medical need caused by the tight handcuffs. Because DeShane was a pretrial detainee, the court analyzed the claim under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process protections, using standards comparable to those applied under the Eighth Amendment.

The court held that DeShane’s single complaint that her hand was going numb did not adequately allege an objectively serious medical need that laypeople would have recognized as requiring immediate medical attention. The complaint did not allege repeated complaints, a statement that she was in pain, a visible injury, serious bodily harm, continuing effects, or medical treatment or diagnosis after her arrest. The court also found that the allegations did not adequately show that Nyblom and Haliburton knew of and deliberately disregarded an objectively serious medical need. It dismissed Count 7 as insufficiently pleaded. The court also agreed that the official-capacity claim lacked allegations of a Hennepin County policy or custom causing the alleged harm, but it did not reach the defendants’ other arguments.

Disposition

The court granted the Hennepin Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss insofar as DeShane’s claims against them—Counts 2, 5, and 7—were dismissed without prejudice. The court granted DeShane’s request for an opportunity to amend, while cautioning that amendment might be futile.

Judge Donovan W. Frank denied DeShane’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as premature and moot. The court noted that DeShane filed that motion before discovery and that the court could not yet determine whether genuine factual disputes existed.