Aery v. Lewis

Background

James Paul Aery sued Deputies Nick Lewis and Kyle Beckwith in their individual and official capacities. His claims arose from the deputies’ efforts to obtain a urine sample from him at the Beltrami County Jail after his arrest on an outstanding warrant and suspicion of driving while impaired. The deputies had obtained a warrant for a blood or urine sample.

Aery alleged that Lewis quickly treated him as having refused to provide a urine sample, did not offer a blood draw, ignored his requests for more time or a different test, poked him in the chest, and claimed that he was trying to escape. Aery asserted claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Minnesota-law claims for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could rule for the opposing party. Their evidence included body-camera footage, jail video, and officers’ incident reports. Aery did not respond by the deadline. A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice, and dismissing the state-law claims without prejudice after declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Court’s analysis

Judge Menendez reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which Aery objected. The court rejected Aery’s argument that the evidence showed he was trying to provide a sample and was asking for a blood test. It held that Aery had not identified a federal constitutional rule requiring officers executing a warrant for a urine or blood sample to give a particular amount of time or to allow the person to choose between those sample types.

The court also held that, even if such a constitutional right existed, the deputies would be protected by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from damages when the asserted right was not clearly established under sufficiently similar precedent. The court found no showing that the claimed right to more time or to choose a blood sample was clearly established at the relevant time.

As to excessive force, the court found that the video evidence contradicted Aery’s description of the incident. The court determined that Aery argued with Lewis for several minutes without attempting to provide the sample, moved through the cell door, struggled with officers, and refused commands to give them his arms. It concluded that the force used to restrain him, prevent him from leaving, and address his physical resistance was reasonable.

The court rejected Aery’s failure-to-train argument against Beltrami County. It reasoned that, because there was no underlying constitutional violation by the deputies, Aery could not establish County liability based on inadequate training. The court also agreed that it should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction—federal authority to decide related state-law claims—over the assault and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims after rejecting the federal claims.

Disposition

Judge Menendez accepted the Report and Recommendation, overruled Aery’s objections, and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The order’s numbered disposition states: “The R&R is ACCEPTED”; “The Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED”; and “This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.” The recommendation had described the state-law claims as dismissible without prejudice, but the final order states that the action was dismissed with prejudice.