Locke v. County of Hubbard

Background

Matthew Locke sued County of Hubbard and deputies Cory Aukes and Scott Parks, in both their individual and official capacities. Locke alleged that, in August 2021, the deputies responded to a report of protestors trespassing on an Enbridge pipeline easement. Locke and three other individuals had attached themselves to construction equipment using sleeping dragon devices. The deputies used pain-compliance techniques in an attempt to remove Locke. Locke alleged that the right side of his face stopped moving normally during the effort. Extraction teams later removed him, and he was transported to a hospital and then to the Hubbard County Jail.

Locke alleged that the force caused facial paralysis, emotional distress, and tinnitus. Count 1 asserted excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments against Aukes and Parks. Counts 2 and 3 asserted assault and battery under Minnesota law against the deputies and the County of Hubbard.

Individual-Capacity Federal Claim

The court considered the defendants’ motion under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion.

The deputies asserted qualified immunity, which generally protects government officials from damages unless the complaint shows that they violated a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established at the time. The court held that Locke did not identify binding authority with sufficiently similar facts, and the court’s research did not reveal law forbidding the use of pain-compliance techniques in the circumstances alleged. The court also rejected an argument based solely on the injury’s severity, explaining that excessive-force analysis considers whether the force was reasonable from the perspective of an officer at the scene, not only the injury that resulted.

The court concluded that Aukes and Parks were entitled to qualified immunity and granted the motion to dismiss Locke’s § 1983 claim against them in their individual capacities.

Official-Capacity and County Claims

The court explained that a § 1983 claim against an officer in an official capacity is effectively a claim against the governmental entity the officer represents. The court therefore treated Locke’s official-capacity claims against Aukes and Parks as claims against the County of Hubbard.

A county may be liable under § 1983 when a constitutional violation results from an official policy, an unofficial custom, or a deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise. The court found that Locke did not allege any of those bases for county liability. It therefore held that he failed to state a § 1983 claim against the deputies in their official capacities or against the County of Hubbard, and granted the motion to dismiss those claims.

Minnesota Assault-and-Battery Claims

The court applied Minnesota’s official-immunity doctrine. Under that doctrine, a public official exercising judgment or discretion generally is not personally liable for damages unless the official committed a willful or malicious wrong. The court determined that the deputies’ decision to use force was discretionary and that Locke did not allege facts showing they had reason to believe the pain-compliance techniques were prohibited. The court concluded that the deputies did not act with malice and were entitled to official immunity.

Because the deputies’ discretionary conduct was protected by official immunity, the County of Hubbard was not vicariously liable for that conduct. The order’s final provision states that the matter is dismissed and directs entry of judgment.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and ordered that the matter be dismissed. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.