By Michael S. Carroll, PhD & Andrew L. Goldsmith, PhD
In December of 2016, Anastacio Lopez attended a Minnesota Vikings game against the Dallas Cowboys at U.S. Bank Stadium. During the course of the game, Lopez became intoxicated and got into a physical altercation with another spectator. Two off-duty Minneapolis police officers providing security in the venue subsequently removed Lopez from the seating area and were in the process of escorting him to a security processing center when an altercation broke out between the two parties. The officers claimed that Lopez began to fight with them and attempted to grab one of the officers’ Tasers. The officers took Lopez to the ground and allegedly punched and kicked him while he was down. One of the officers also tasered him twice. Medical personnel treated Lopez for injuries sustained to his right eye, and he was booked into the Hennepin County jail, charged with a felony for attempting to disarm a police officer. At trial, security video of the altercation was shown to a jury. The jury deliberated for one day before acquitting Lopez of the charges. Following his acquittal, in April of 2017, Lopez filed a federal civil suit against the officers, and three other individuals within the police department, as well as, the city of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Vikings organization, and the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority (MSFA). Lopez alleged that the County, “…. falsely arrested, incarcerated, maliciously prosecuted, and failed to provide adequate medical attention” to him and that he was attacked due to his color and ethnicity.
In a separate hearing in January of 2018, the MSFA filed a motion to dismiss regarding Lopez’s claims of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. In that case, the judge granted the dismissal, stating that such claims were barred by statutory immunity. Additional claims regarding the doctrine of respondeat superior were also dismissed as not supported by sufficient factual allegations but noted that Lopez was granted the ability to amend his complaint. The present case was filed in June of 2018 and contains nine counts against Hennepin County (“the County”), including excessive use of force; a Monell violation; a § 1985 violation for deprivation of civil rights; negligent failure to properly provide adequate medical care; negligent training, hiring, retention, and supervision; false imprisonment; malicious prosecution; and in respondeat superior claims for intentional and negligent misconduct. The County filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court assumes the allegations in the complaint to be true and make all reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (in this case Lopez). However, a complaint must contain facts sufficient to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face in order to survive the motion to dismiss. In this manner, the Court examined each of the claims with respect to this analysis.
§ 1983 Individual-Capacity Claims
This claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleges that individual County Defendants violated Lopez’s rights under both the fourth and 14th amendments when he was taken down, beaten, and incarcerated. However, the court found that the complaint failed to allege a discrete act by any of the individual County Defendants, and thus Count I was dismissed.
Municipal Liability
Lopez claimed that the County is liable under § 1983 for improperly training its employees to provide appropriate medical assistance to him while he was in jail (i.e., the Monell claim). He claims that he was not given any medical treatment despite his numerous requests and obvious physical appearance. Establishing deliberate indifference on a failure-to-train claim generally requires a pattern of similar constitutional violations by employees. The Court ruled that the allegations in the complaint were insufficient to support a Monell claim, as it failed to reference any specific jail policy or pattern of constitutional violations by employees, and thus Count II was dismissed.
§ 1985 Conspiracy Claim
Section 1985(3) provides for a cause of action against two or more persons who conspire to deprive any person or class of persons of equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws. In order to state a claim under § 1985(3), Lopez would need to allege a conspiracy for the purpose of depriving him of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, an act in furtherance of the conspiracy, and an injury to himself or his property, or the deprivation of one or more of his legal rights. In this case, Lopez argues that Defendants conspired to deprive him of “equal protection of the laws” due to his race. The County’s role in the conspiracy was using unreasonable and excessive force against him while he was in custody, including depriving him of appropriate medical attention. However, the Court found that the complaint failed to allege with specificity how Defendants conspired to violate his rights, and thus Count III was dismissed.
Negligent Failure to Provide Medical Care
Lopez claimed that the County was negligent in failing to provide him with appropriate medical care. Such a negligence claim is based upon the existence of a duty of care, a breach of that duty, injury, and a causal connection between the breach of the duty and the injury sustained. The Court found that the complaint did not state any facts related to when or how Lopez requested medical assistance, or how any of the individual County Defendants actually denied such medical assistance. As such, the Court ruled that Lopez had failed to allege facts sufficient to establish breach or causation, and therefore Count IV was dismissed.
Negligent Training, Hiring, Retention, and Supervision
Lopez claimed that the County failed to exercise appropriate supervision, control, authority, training, and discipline with respect to its agents providing security, leading to his injuries. However, Minnesota law does not recognize a cause of action for negligent training. Additionally, the County is a municipality and thus entitled to statutory immunity on these claims under Minn. Stat. § 466.01, subd. 1. The Court noted that even if statutory immunity did not apply, the complaint contained insufficient factual allegations to establish a negligent hiring claim. As such, Count V was dismissed.
False Imprisonment
Lopez claimed that the County lacked probable cause to detain him at the Hennepin County Jail, and thus, falsely imprisoned him. A defense to false imprisonment exists when a jailer acts, “… in reliance upon a commitment fair and valid on its face and issued by a court.” In this case, the County detained Lopez pursuant to an order and probable cause finding issued by a state court judge. Lopez does not dispute that this order was valid on its face, and therefore the Court dismissed Count VI.
Malicious Prosecution
Lopez claimed that the County maliciously prosecuted Lopez. Minnesota case law has established that public prosecutors are immune from civil liability when acting within the scope of their duties by filing and maintaining criminal charges. The Court thus dismissed Count VII.
Respondeat Superior Claims
Lopez claimed that the County is vicariously liable for intentional and negligent misconduct related to his previous claims. For respondeat superior liability to exist, there must first be an actor personally liable for the tort, and second the actor must be within the scope of the employment by the employer at the time of the act. Here, the Court noted that the complaint identifies only the individual County Defendants as actors but it does not state what they did or did not do. Noting that Lopez’s negligence claims contained no concrete allegations related to the County’s alleged denial of medical care and a failure to state any specific injury caused by such actions, the Court dismissed the respondeat superior claims.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the court ruled that the complaint failed to state any claim against the County on which relief can be granted by the court. As such, the County’s motion to dismiss was granted.
Michael S. Carroll is an Associate Professor of Sport Management at Troy University specializing in research related to sport law and risk management in sport and recreation. He has published over 30 articles and delivered over 50 presentations at professional conferences. He is currently serving as President of the Sport and Recreation Law Association. He lives in Orlando, FL.
Andrew L. Goldsmith is an Assistant Professor of Sport Management at Troy University specializing in research related to organizational behavior and ethical decision-making in sport and recreation. He has published over 20 articles and delivered over 30 presentations at professional conferences. He currently resides in Denver, CO.
