Awaijane v. Bittell

Background

The plaintiffs alleged that, on May 30, 2020, they were protecting a gas station and convenience store in Minneapolis after it had been looted during civil unrest. They alleged that Minneapolis Police Department SWAT Unit 1281 approached the station and fired 40-millimeter less-lethal rounds at them without warning. They also alleged that officers used chemical spray on two plaintiffs who had surrendered.

The plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state or local officials who violate federal rights. Against Nathan Sundberg, Mark Ringgenberg, and Xavier Rucker, the plaintiffs alleged that the officers failed to intervene to stop other officers’ allegedly excessive force. The opinion states that the three moving defendants were present during the incident but were not alleged to have used force themselves.

Motion and Arguments

The three officers moved for judgment on the pleadings. The court reviews that motion under the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court generally accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiffs.

The moving defendants argued that body-camera videos showed they did not observe excessive force and had no realistic opportunity to intervene. They also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity, which can protect government officials from liability when their conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment violation. An officer may be liable for failing to intervene when the officer observed, or had reason to know, that excessive force would be or was being used and had the opportunity and means to prevent it.

The court concluded that the alleged circumstances supported an inference that the three officers had reason to know excessive force would be used. The allegations included that the unit had discussed shooting 40-millimeter rounds at civilians without warning, traveled with emergency lights off, slowed other squad cars so the launchers could be used, saw the plaintiffs engaging in peaceful conduct, and then approached and fired at them.

The body-camera videos did not conclusively establish what the three officers personally saw. The cameras faced forward from chest level and could show a different view from the officers’ actual perspectives. The court therefore accepted, for purposes of the motion, reasonable inferences that the officers could see the gas station before the shooting and could see the area near the gas pumps after leaving the van. The court stated that further discovery was needed to determine what the officers actually observed and whether they were close enough to intervene in the alleged use of chemical spray.

The court also found that the allegations plausibly showed the officers had an opportunity and means to prevent the harm. The officers allegedly had time to oppose or deescalate the plan before the shooting. The court also noted that about ten seconds passed between the gas station being identified and the command to shoot, and that shots were fired at several points afterward. The court declined to resolve factual disputes about the officers’ opportunity to intervene based on the videos at the pleadings stage.

On qualified immunity, the court concluded that existing Eighth Circuit precedent had clearly established that using more than minimal force against a person who was not suspected of a serious crime, threatening anyone, fleeing, or resisting arrest could constitute excessive force. The court also stated that it was clearly established that an officer who fails to intervene to prevent another officer’s unconstitutional excessive force may be liable under the Fourth Amendment. Based on the allegations, the court concluded that the moving defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

Disposition

The court denied Nathan Sundberg, Mark Ringgenberg, and Xavier Rucker’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The opinion did not determine ultimate liability or state that the plaintiffs had already proved their claims; it allowed the claim against these three defendants to proceed beyond this stage.