Berry v. Hennepin County

Background

The plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) for permission to file a second amended complaint. The motion was filed on January 30, 2023, the deadline set in the parties’ amended pretrial scheduling order for motions to amend pleadings. The plaintiffs said the proposed amendments would bring the complaint in line with evidence obtained in discovery and with earlier rulings on the defendants’ motions to dismiss.

The proposed amendments included: changes to the caption; deletion of the plaintiffs’ privacy theory supporting their substantive-due-process claim; deletion of individual-capacity claims against Hennepin County, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board officials, and Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara; changes involving allegations by individual plaintiffs and putative class member Emmett Williams; reassertion of a municipal-liability claim against Hennepin County; reassertion of federal constitutional claims against Hennepin County; and a new civil-conspiracy claim against all defendants. The plaintiffs also sought to reassert a previously dismissed state-created-danger theory to preserve their ability to appeal.

Court’s Analysis

Rule 15(a)(2) provides that courts should freely allow amendments when justice requires, although leave may be denied for reasons such as undue delay, prejudice, or futility. An amendment is futile if the proposed complaint could not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a plausible claim.

The court granted leave for the unopposed amendments, including the caption changes, deletion of the privacy theory, deletion of specified individual-capacity claims, and amendments concerning allegations in paragraphs 14 through 148.

The court denied leave to reassert the state-created-danger theory against Hennepin County and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright had previously dismissed that theory because the plaintiffs had not identified a state-created-danger doctrine under Minnesota law and had not alleged a danger created by the state. Judge Docherty concluded that this was a legal deficiency rather than a technical pleading problem. Because the claim had been rejected on that basis, the court held that the plaintiffs did not need to reassert it to avoid waiving an appeal, and justice did not require allowing the amendment.

The court allowed the plaintiffs to reassert a Monell claim against Hennepin County. A Monell claim seeks to hold a municipality liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a constitutional violation resulting from an official policy, an unofficial custom, or deliberate indifference in training or supervision, rather than merely from the municipality’s employment of the person who committed the alleged violation. The proposed complaint added allegations that County employees operated under a “no questions asked” custom during encampment sweeps; that County officials received information about the sweeps and alleged property destruction; and that County officials participated in planning or carrying out the sweeps. Viewing those allegations in the plaintiffs’ favor, the court found they plausibly suggested that County policymaking officials had notice of or authorized the alleged misconduct. The court therefore allowed the plaintiffs to reassert the Monell claim and the related federal constitutional claims against Hennepin County.

The court also allowed the new civil-conspiracy claim. The proposed claim alleged conspiracies to deprive the plaintiffs of federal and state constitutional rights and to commit conversion. The plaintiffs alleged that Hennepin County, the City of Minneapolis, and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board coordinated encampment clearances, arrests, and removal of people and property. The court found these allegations plausibly suggested an agreement among the defendants to deprive the plaintiffs of constitutional rights. It also rejected the defendants’ argument that the conspiracy claim was barred by Monell because the plaintiffs alleged direct involvement by the municipal entities themselves, not liability based only on the actions of their employees.

The court rejected the defendants’ delay-and-prejudice argument. The plaintiffs had filed by the agreed deadline, did not seek to reopen discovery or extend pretrial deadlines, and the defendants’ asserted prejudice—the possibility that motions to dismiss new claims might not be resolved before the summary-judgment and class-certification deadline—was speculative.

Disposition

Judge John F. Docherty granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs were ordered to file a second amended complaint consistent with the order by May 11, 2023. This order addressed permission to amend the pleadings; it did not decide the ultimate merits of the claims.