Wolk v. City of Brooklyn Center, The

Background

Sam Wolk sued the City of Brooklyn Center; Tim Gannon; Tony Gruenig; David Hutchinson; Hennepin County; the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; Rodman Smith; Aaron Kahre; and unidentified officers. Wolk alleged First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations arising from law-enforcement responses to protests following the fatal shooting of Daunte Wright. Wolk also alleged civil conspiracy and failure to intervene under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The amended complaint sought damages, a permanent injunction, and attorney’s fees.

Wolk alleged that officers from multiple agencies used tear gas, pepper spray, flash-bang grenades, rubber projectiles, and other less-lethal weapons against protesters. Wolk alleged that, on April 14, 2021, an unidentified officer shot them in the knee with a rubber bullet while they were moving away from a perimeter fence. Wolk also alleged that supervisory officials knew about repeated uses of force, failed to train or supervise officers adequately, and authorized or coordinated the response.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources defendants challenged Wolk’s standing to seek declaratory or injunctive relief. Several supervisory defendants asserted qualified immunity, which can protect government officials from individual-capacity claims unless the complaint plausibly alleges the officials violated a clearly established constitutional right. The defendants also argued that Wolk failed to state claims for failure to train, supervise, or intervene; substantive due process; and conspiracy. Wolk voluntarily dismissed claims against the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Commissioner John Harrington, and Colonel Matthew Langer after the motions were filed.

Standing

The court rejected the DNR defendants’ argument that Wolk lacked standing. Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show an injury, a connection between the injury and the challenged conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable decision would remedy the injury. The court focused on whether Wolk alleged a real and immediate risk of future harm.

The court distinguished a case involving a single prior instance of police brutality. Wolk alleged multiple incidents over four days, intended to participate in future lawful protests, and alleged that officers’ conduct was authorized or endorsed. Taking the allegations as true at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court concluded that Wolk had standing.

Qualified Immunity and Supervisory Liability

The court denied the supervisory defendants’ requests for dismissal based on qualified immunity. Wolk alleged that Commander Tony Gruenig and Chief Tim Gannon knew about a pattern of unconstitutional conduct by Brooklyn Center police and failed to provide adequate training or supervision despite a city resolution restricting certain crowd-control tactics.

The court also found that Wolk plausibly alleged that Colonel Rodman Smith and Captain Aaron Kahre had notice of a pattern of unconstitutional conduct by their subordinates and acted with deliberate indifference. The allegations against Sheriff David Hutchinson similarly stated a plausible claim that he knew about repeated uses of force by Hennepin County officers and failed to supervise or train them adequately.

The court also concluded that the alleged conduct could recur but end before a complete judicial review, and that Wolk could face the same conduct again. It therefore applied the legal doctrine for disputes capable of recurring while ending too quickly for full review.

Failure to State a Claim

The court held that Wolk plausibly alleged claims based on failure to train, failure to supervise, and failure to intervene. The court treated those conclusions as following from its qualified-immunity analysis of the supervisory-liability allegations.

The court dismissed Count IV, Wolk’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due-process claim. It explained that when another constitutional amendment directly addresses the alleged government conduct, that amendment—not the more general substantive-due-process protection—controls. Because excessive-force claims are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, the court granted the motion to dismiss Count IV.

The court concluded that Wolk plausibly alleged a civil-conspiracy claim. Wolk alleged that multiple law-enforcement agencies coordinated their response to the protests, that the coordinated response included excessive force and other unconstitutional acts, and that those acts caused Wolk’s injuries. The court found sufficient allegations of a meeting of the minds and personal involvement by Commander Gruenig, Colonel Smith, Captain Kahre, Chief Gannon, and Sheriff Hutchinson. The court denied the motions to dismiss the conspiracy claims against those defendants.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright ordered that each motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The City Defendants’ motion, the DNR Defendants’ motion, Chief Gannon’s motion, and the Hennepin County Defendants’ motion were each granted as to Count IV and denied as to the remaining claims.