Frazier v. Mueller
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:22-cv-02532
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Frazier v. Mueller, Judge Blackwell granted in part and denied in part Mueller’s motion, dismissing Frazier’s Fourteenth Amendment claim without prejudice.
Eddie Markeith Frazier’s Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claim was dismissed without prejudice; Scott David Mueller’s motion was granted in part and denied in part.
What happened
In Eddie Markeith Frazier v. Scott David Mueller, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Agent Scott David Mueller shot Frazier after agents found him in his vehicle while looking for him as a murder suspect. Frazier alleged that Mueller used excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Mueller asked the court to dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment claim because excessive-force claims arising from a police seizure are governed by the Fourth Amendment. Frazier argued that the Fourteenth Amendment claim could proceed if Mueller accidentally shot him, because an accidental shooting would not be a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell dismissed Count II, the Fourteenth Amendment claim, without prejudice because Frazier had not alleged enough facts to plausibly show an accidental shooting. The court granted in part and denied in part Mueller’s motion and denied his request to dismiss Count II with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Frazier v. Mueller · No. 0:22-cv-02532
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- May 8, 2023
Background
Scott David Mueller, identified in the opinion as a Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension agent, and two other agents were waiting for Eddie Markeith Frazier near a driveway in unmarked vehicles. The agents yelled for Frazier to put his hands up. According to the complaint, Frazier raised his hands while seated in his vehicle, and Mueller fired one shot that struck Frazier’s right forearm. Frazier drove away, crashed his vehicle, and was later apprehended by officers.
Frazier sued Mueller in his individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force under both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Mueller moved to dismiss Count II, the Fourteenth Amendment claim, arguing that the Fourth Amendment governs the alleged use of force.
Issue
The issue was whether Frazier plausibly alleged a Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claim based on his argument that Mueller might have shot him accidentally.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that excessive-force claims arising from a police “seizure” are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment rather than the more general Fourteenth Amendment due-process provision. A seizure occurs when an officer physically touches a person or the person submits to an officer’s show of authority. The court stated that a bullet generally physically touches a person, but also recognized that a seizure requires intentional force used with the intent to restrain; accidental force does not qualify.
Although a plaintiff may plead alternative theories, the court concluded that Frazier had not alleged enough facts to support a reasonable inference that Mueller accidentally shot him. The court therefore dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment claim. Because it dismissed Count II on that ground, it did not address Mueller’s other arguments.
Order and effect
The court ordered that Mueller’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Count II was DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Mueller’s request to dismiss Count II with prejudice was DENIED. The court stated that if discovery later produced facts supporting a Fourteenth Amendment violation, Frazier might have good cause to amend the complaint, and the court did not foreclose that possibility.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.