Sens v. Hutchinson

Background

Plaintiffs Eleanore Sens, Chandan Khanna, and Robin Legrand are journalists employed by Agence France-Presse. They alleged that, while covering protests and civil unrest following the shooting of Daunte Wright, Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office deputies verbally harassed and physically assaulted them. According to the complaint, an unidentified deputy pepper-sprayed the plaintiffs, and another deputy told them that they could not film and threatened to arrest them. The plaintiffs alleged that the conduct violated their First Amendment rights.

The plaintiffs also alleged that Sheriff David Hutchinson had operational command of the law-enforcement response, monitored the response through surveillance and communication systems, and failed to train, supervise, or intervene to prevent misconduct against journalists. They asserted claims against Hutchinson in his individual and official capacities and a claim under the rule from Monell v. Department of Social Services, which can impose liability on a local government for an unconstitutional policy or custom. The unidentified Doe defendants were also named in the complaint.

Motion to Dismiss

Hutchinson moved to dismiss the claims against him in his individual capacity for failure to state a claim and lack of standing. He also moved to dismiss the Monell claim and alternatively asserted qualified immunity. On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true but does not accept conclusory allegations or legal conclusions. The complaint must contain enough specific facts to make the claim plausible rather than merely possible.

Individual-Capacity Claims

The court considered three theories of supervisory liability: direct participation, failure to supervise or train, and failure to intervene.

For direct participation, the plaintiffs needed to allege that Hutchinson was personally involved in, ordered, or directed the constitutional violations. The court found that they had not done so. The plaintiffs did not allege that Hutchinson was physically present or that he directly ordered the Doe officers to use force against them or journalists generally. Although Hutchinson allegedly issued a dispersal order, the order did not mention journalists or the media, and the court found that issuing a lawful dispersal order was not prohibited by the temporary restraining order in the related proceeding.

For failure to supervise or train, the plaintiffs needed to plausibly allege that Hutchinson had notice of a sufficiently similar pattern of unconstitutional conduct by subordinates, acted with deliberate indifference to that pattern, failed to take sufficient corrective action, and thereby caused their injuries. The court found the allegations insufficient. The cited 2016 incident lacked enough detail and did not allege that Hutchinson had notice of it. Allegations involving other law-enforcement agencies and lawsuits were too vague or disconnected to establish a similar pattern by Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office subordinates. The court also declined to consider a declaration and related documents that were not part of the complaint, while noting that considering them would not change the result.

For failure to intervene, the plaintiffs needed to allege that Hutchinson observed or had reason to know that excessive force was being used and had an opportunity to stop it. The court acknowledged that it was unclear whether Hutchinson’s alleged monitoring satisfied the observation requirement. Even assuming that it did, the plaintiffs did not allege facts showing that he had an immediate opportunity to intervene in the fast-moving events or knew enough about a specific act of force to stop it. The court therefore found that the failure-to-intervene claim was not plausible.

Monell Claim

The court explained that an official-capacity claim against Hutchinson was effectively a claim against Hennepin County. To state a Monell claim, the plaintiffs had to identify a county policy or custom that caused the constitutional injury and plausibly allege deliberate indifference or tacit authorization, as well as a direct causal connection between the policy or custom and the alleged injury.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged an unconstitutional Hennepin County or Sheriff’s Office policy or custom. The allegations concerning the Goyette proceeding, the 2016 use-of-force incident, conduct by other law-enforcement agencies, and later lawsuits did not establish that Hennepin County or the Sheriff’s Office had notice of a persistent pattern of similar misconduct, acted with deliberate indifference, or maintained a custom that was the moving force behind the alleged violations on April 16, 2021. The court dismissed the Monell claim.

Disposition

The court granted Hutchinson’s motion to dismiss. Counts IV and VI were dismissed with prejudice as asserted against Hutchinson, Hutchinson was terminated as a party, and Count VI—the Monell claim—was dismissed with prejudice. The claims against the Doe defendants remained. The court stated that it was not deciding the merits of the allegations against those officers.