Aery v. Pine County Ambulance Service

Background

James Paul Aery, who was incarcerated and represented himself, alleged that he called emergency services after tripping in an alley in October 2020. He alleged that a Pine County Ambulance Service paramedic hit him in the face with a closed fist while he was being restrained and that another paramedic injected him with an unknown substance that caused him to lose consciousness. He also alleged that a paramedic took a substance from him, believing it was cocaine, although Aery said it was his mother’s ashes, and that the ashes had not been returned.

Aery sued Pine County Ambulance Service, “Unknown EMS-Pine County,” and Pine City, Minnesota, alleging constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Aery was incarcerated, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which permits dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim for relief. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case without prejudice and denying Aery’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. Aery objected.

Court’s analysis

Pine County Ambulance Service. The court held that Aery had not alleged whether the ambulance service was an arm of Pine County or a private entity. If it was private, Aery had not alleged facts showing that it acted jointly with government officials under color of state law, as required for a § 1983 claim. If it was a public entity, the court stated that ambulance services and similar municipal departments cannot sue or be sued as separate legal entities. The court therefore concluded that the ambulance service was not a proper defendant under either possibility.

Pine City. A municipality can be liable under § 1983 only when its own policy, ordinance, regulation, or custom caused the alleged constitutional violation. Aery argued that the obvious and cruel nature of the alleged conduct supported an unconstitutional city custom. The court rejected that argument, explaining that a custom generally requires a continuing and widespread pattern of unconstitutional conduct, deliberate indifference or tacit authorization by policymakers after notice, and proof that the custom caused the violation. The court also stated that a single act cannot establish liability for an unconstitutional custom. It concluded that Aery had not plausibly alleged municipal liability against Pine City.

Excessive force and injection. The court considered Aery’s excessive-force claim under the Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness standard. It found that Aery plausibly alleged that a paramedic struck him, but that he had not provided enough facts about the circumstances to show that the force was unreasonable. The court likewise concluded that his allegation that he was injected with medication without consent did not include enough facts to plausibly allege a constitutional violation. The court analyzed these claims assuming, without deciding, that the paramedics were state actors.

Property and due process. The court found that Aery had adequately alleged a legally protected interest in the property that was taken. But it concluded that he had not provided enough facts to show that the seizure was unlawful or to identify what process was constitutionally required. The court also stated that Aery had not alleged that the paramedics remained in control of the property or were responsible for providing any remedy after the taking. As a result, the paramedics were not plausibly shown to be proper defendants for this claim.

Disposition

Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Aery’s objection, adopted the report and recommendation, and dismissed Aery’s complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court denied Aery’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot. The opinion does not state that the fee application was denied for any reason other than mootness.