Berry v. Hennepin County

Background

Nine individual plaintiffs alleged that Hennepin County, the City of Minneapolis, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, named officials, and unnamed police officers conducted “sweeps” of encampments in Minneapolis public parks and seized or destroyed property belonging to people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Plaintiff ZACAH, a nonprofit organization, alleged that it diverted substantial funds to pay for hotel rooms for displaced encampment residents, frustrating its organizational mission.

The amended complaint asserted five counts: unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment and Minnesota law; invasion of privacy under the Fourth Amendment and Minnesota law; procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and Minnesota law; substantive due process; and conversion under Minnesota law. The opinion also addressed allegations of municipal liability under Section 1983, the federal civil-rights statute, and Section 1983 civil conspiracy.

The defendants filed three motions for judgment on the pleadings: one by the City Defendants, one by the County Defendants, and one by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. The court applied the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. At that stage, the court generally accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true and asked whether they plausibly supported relief.

Standing for Injunctive Relief

The individual plaintiffs sought an order stopping alleged practices during future encampment closures, including inadequate notice, closures when shelter was insufficient, threats, and immediate destruction of property. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the complaint alleged that they were currently housed and therefore faced no imminent harm from future closures.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded standing. It reasoned that homelessness can be temporary and cyclical, and that the alleged shortage of affordable housing and years-long waiting lists made it reasonably possible that the plaintiffs could again experience homelessness. The court therefore allowed their requests for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief to proceed.

Municipal Liability

The plaintiffs alleged that the City Defendants and County Defendants maintained customs involving inadequate notice before encampment closures and the improper seizure or destruction of personal property. To plead municipal liability under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege a policy or custom that caused a constitutional violation.

The court held that the allegations met the pleading standard. The plaintiffs identified at least three closures involving alleged lack of notice and seizure or destruction of belongings, alleged broader involvement in other closures, and alleged that Minneapolis policymakers observed closures in real time. The court also concluded that the allegations against the County Defendants were sufficient at this stage because the plaintiffs alleged that County assistance enabled the misconduct. The municipal-liability claims were allowed to proceed.

Civil Conspiracy

The plaintiffs alleged that the City Defendants, County Defendants, and Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Defendants agreed to provide insufficient notice, improperly seize property, and immediately destroy belongings during encampment closures. They relied on alleged extensive communication and coordination among the defendants.

The court acknowledged that ordinary cooperation would not be enough to plead a conspiracy. It nevertheless concluded that, viewed in the plaintiffs’ favor, the alleged level of coordination plausibly suggested more than regular cooperation. The alleged joint participation in closures could also constitute overt acts supporting the alleged conspiracy. The Section 1983 conspiracy claims against the City Defendants and County Defendants were therefore allowed to proceed.

ZACAH’s Claims

The defendants argued that ZACAH could not proceed because its own property was not allegedly seized or destroyed and because its hotel-room expenses were not sufficiently connected to the plaintiffs’ seizure and destruction claims.

The court concluded that ZACAH had adequately pleaded organizational standing. It found that the alleged diversion of substantial funds to pay for hotel rooms was a sufficiently distinct injury allegedly traceable to the defendants’ encampment-closure practices. The court declined to dismiss ZACAH at this stage.

Disposition

The court denied the City Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the County Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, and denied the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The order addressed whether the claims were sufficiently pleaded and could proceed; it did not finally determine whether the defendants violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional or statutory rights. The order was signed by United States District Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright.