Afyare v. Weyker et al
ORDER: (1) Defendants Heather Weyker and John Bandemer's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 35 ] is GRANTED. (2) Defendant City of Saint Paul's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Dkt. No. 44 ] is GRANTED. (3) Plaintiff Abdullahi Sade Afyare's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on August 9, 2017. (CBC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ABDULLAHI SADE AFYARE,
HEATHER WEYKER, in her individual
capacity as a St. Paul Police Officer;
JOHN BANDEMER, in his individual
and official capacities as a St. Paul
Police Sergeant; JOHN DOES 3-4, in
their individual and official capacities as
supervisory members of the St. Paul
Police Department; and THE CITY OF
Case No. 16cv1758 (JNE/TNL)
Plaintiff Abdullahi Sade Afyare alleges violations of his constitutional rights in an
investigation that led to his indictment by a federal grand jury and subsequent arrest. He sues
Defendants Heather Weyker, a police officer for the St. Paul Police Department in Minnesota;
John Bandemer, a St. Paul Police Department sergeant who is alleged to have been Weyker’s
supervisor; John Does 3-4, who are allegedly supervisory St. Paul police officers; and the City of
St. Paul (“St. Paul”). Weyker and Bandemer move to dismiss Afyare’s complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and on absolute and qualified
immunity grounds. Dkt. No. 35. St. Paul moves on behalf of the City of St. Paul and John Does
3-4 for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c). Dkt. No. 44.
The investigation at the core of Afyare’s civil complaint targeted a suspected venture
involving the sex-trafficking of minor girls across Minnesota, Tennessee, and Ohio. The
investigation resulted in the criminal indictment of thirty people, mostly Somali, in the Middle
District of Tennessee in 2010-2011 (“Tennessee Case”). Afyare alleges that Weyker and
Bandemer fabricated evidence about him and others throughout the investigation, resulting in a
tainted indictment that was further corrupted by Weyker’s continuing deception, and causing his
arrest and detention without probable cause.
Nineteen of Afyare’s co-defendants in the Tennessee Case bring separate suits similarly
alleging constitutional violations, and a twenty-first person brings another related civil suit. The
parties agreed to coordinated briefing on the Defendants’ motions. The Court assumes
familiarity with its fuller opinion in one of the related cases, Osman v. Weyker, et al., No.
16cv908 (“Osman Opinion”) (filed simultaneously herewith), and will not repeat that opinion’s
discussion verbatim here, given the overlap in allegations and arguments. Afyare, coordinating
with the other plaintiffs represented by the same counsel, opposed the motions. See GBBS Pls.’
Opp. to St. Paul Mot., Dkt. No. 49; GBBS Pls.’ Opp. to DOJ Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 52.
The Court held a hearing on Defendants’ motions on May 3, 2017, and now grants both
A motion to dismiss or a motion for judgment on the pleadings is appropriately granted
“only when there is no dispute as to any material facts and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a [m]atter of law.” Greenman v. Jessen, 787 F.3d 882, 887 (8th Cir. 2015) (citation
omitted). To survive a Rule 12 motion, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); Haney v.
The United States also filed a Motion to Substitute and Dismiss, which was mooted by
stipulation as recognized by the April 12, 2017 Order Permitting the GBBS Plaintiffs to Amend
Complaints. Dkt. No. 59. Pursuant to that order, Afyare filed an Amended Complaint [Dkt. No.
60] (“AC”), which is thus the operative complaint subject to these Rule 12 motions.
Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 837 F.3d 918, 924 (8th Cir. 2016), as amended (Dec. 27,
2016). See also Osman Op. 3-4.
Most of the allegations are similar to those alleged by Osman and summarized and
analyzed in the Court’s order in that case. See, e.g., Osman Op. 4-8. The Court briefly recounts
some allegations in Afyare’s Amended Complaint and some facts gleaned from the Tennessee
Case record. 2
In April 2009, Afyare went to a party with some individuals who in time became his codefendants in the Tennessee Case. AC ¶ 17. He met Jane Doe Two there for the first time. Id.
A few days later, he and his friends, as well as Jane Doe Two, took a road trip to Nashville,
Tennessee. AC ¶ 18. Soon after they arrived in Nashville, they were arrested, and he was
charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor (Jane Doe Two). AC ¶¶ 20-23.
On November 8, 2010, Afyare was arrested on a First Superseding Indictment (“FSI”),
dated November 3, 2010. See AC ¶¶ 28, 34. He was taken to an immigration detention center,
where Weyker began to question him “and threatened that if he did not admit to her trumped up
tale of sex trafficking and implicate others, he would go to prison for a long time.” AC ¶¶ 28-29.
Afyare “refused to falsely admit to things he did not do nor falsely implicate others.” Id. That
same day, he was brought before a magistrate judge for a detention hearing. AC ¶ 30. The judge
ordered him released on conditions, but the government appealed, and the district court in
Tennessee stayed the release order pending the appeal, so Afyare remained in custody. AC ¶ 30.
Eventually the appeal was decided, and he was released on conditions. AC ¶ 52.
The Court may take judicial notice of public documents in the Tennessee Case record.
Greenman, 787 F.3d at 887.
The indictment charged Afyare in seven counts. See FSI, United States v. Afyare, No.
3:10cr260, Dkt. No. 36 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 3, 2010). Two counts alleged participation in a sextrafficking conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) (Counts 1 and 2). Two counts, Counts
3 and 4, alleged obstruction of justice. Counts 12 and 13 alleged, from December 2006 through
April 2009, recruitment and attempted recruitment of a minor (Jane Doe Two) to engage in sex
trafficking. Finally, Count 18 alleged that from 2007 through September 2010, Afyare conspired
to commit credit card fraud. E.g., FSI ¶¶ 117, 119, 128, 130-32.
In early 2012, as the parties in the Tennessee Case prepared for trial to begin in March,
the district court granted a motion to sever some of the counts, including Counts 15 and 18, for
later trial. United States v. Afyare, No. 3:10cr260, Dkt. No. 1395 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 16, 2012).
In addition, Afyare and some other defendants elected to be severed from the defendants who
were preparing for trial on sex-trafficking-related charges. United States v. Adan, 913 F. Supp.
2d 555, 559 (M.D. Tenn. 2012).
In the criminal trial that took place in Spring 2012, the jury acquitted six defendants fully,
and acquitted three defendants on some counts but convicted them on other counts. See AC
¶ 56. The district court then granted Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motions for
judgments of acquittal by the three convicted defendants, on the basis of a variance. See AC ¶
56; Adan, 913 F. Supp. 2d at 579.
After that trial, in August 2012, a Third Superseding Indictment was filed. It charged
Afyare with the same crimes, including credit-card fraud conspiracy, and added some charges.
See United States v. Afyare, No. 3:10cr260, Dkt. No. 2701 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 22, 2012).
Afyare was released from pretrial detention after the Sixth Circuit on March 2, 2016,
decided the appeal of the district court’s order granting the Rule 29 motions, and after the
government subsequently moved to dismiss all charges against all remaining defendants. See
AC ¶¶ 58-59; see also United States v. Fahra, 643 Fed. Appx. 480 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2016).
Like Osman, Afyare alleges that the charges of a wide-ranging sex-trafficking conspiracy
were baseless and that Weyker fabricated “the overwhelming majority of material evidence
supporting Afyare’s indictment for sex trafficking,” AC ¶ 43; that Weyker manipulated and
coerced Jane Doe witnesses, including Jane Doe Two, into lying, e.g., AC ¶¶ 41, 47, 60; and that
indications of Weyker’s fabrication included her rough notes, AC ¶ 48, questions surrounding
Jane Doe Two’s age, AC ¶¶ 21, 49, 50, questions surrounding Jane Doe Two’s April 2009 trip to
Nashville, AC ¶¶ 22, 42, 48, and the results of the Spring 2012 trial, AC ¶ 56. Also like Osman,
Afyare’s complaint repeatedly cites to remarks about Weyker and the case by the district and
appellate courts in the Tennessee Case. AC ¶¶ 42, 44 n.1, 50, 63-64.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
A summary of the parties’ arguments is included in Section IV of the Court’s
simultaneously filed opinion in Yusuf v. Weyker, et al., No. 16cv1012. Afyare is represented by
the same counsel as Yusuf.
As explained fully in the Osman Opinion, pursuant to Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct.
911 (Mar. 21, 2017), Afyare’s claims sound, if at all, in the Fourth Amendment, not the Fifth or
Fourteenth. See Osman Op. 11-13; see also id. at 17-22. His complaint is that “[b]ut for the
false testimony and other erroneous evidence manufactured by Weyker and Bandemer, no
probable cause existed to detain or otherwise restrict Afyare’s liberty.” AC ¶ 1; see also AC
¶ 49. In other words, he complains “that a form of legal process resulted in pretrial detention
unsupported by probable cause.” Manuel, 137 S. Ct. at 919. So “the right allegedly infringed
lies in the Fourth Amendment.” Id. A “constitutional division of labor” applies to claims similar
to Afyare’s. Id. at 920 n.8 (referring to Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975), and Albright v.
Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994)). Thus, because he challenges his pretrial detention, his claim is
under the Fourth Amendment. His claims for substantive due process violations under the Fifth
or Fourteenth Amendments therefore fail. See Manuel, 137 S. Ct. at 919-20; Albright, 510 U.S.
at 271 (plurality opinion). 3
Under the Fourth Amendment analysis, the Court must decide whether Afyare plausibly
alleges that the Defendants violated his right to be free from unreasonable seizure by arresting
and detaining him without arguable probable cause, based on fabricated evidence. 4
To evaluate whether a person’s Fourth Amendment right has been violated by an arrest
pursuant to a warrant that lacked probable cause, the court applies the analysis set out in Franks
v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). See Hawkins v. Gage Cty., 759 F.3d 951, 958-59 (8th Cir.
2014); Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 101, 105 (1st Cir. 2013). Thus, the court
considers whether there were deliberately or recklessly false statements made in support of a
finding of probable cause and whether those statements were necessary to the finding of probable
cause. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 156; Williams v. City of Alexander, 772 F.3d 1307, 1311 (8th Cir.
2014). The court also considers whether material information was omitted with the intent to
mislead or with reckless disregard as to whether the omission was misleading. See Williams, 772
As explained in a footnote in the Court’s simultaneously filed order in Yusuf v. Weyker,
et al., No. 16cv1012, his attempt to distinguish Albright in the opposition papers, which were
filed without the benefit of the Manuel decision, is not persuasive in light of the Manuel Court’s
clear interpretation of Albright. See Manuel, 137 S. Ct. at 918.
Because the Court finds that only the Fourth Amendment, and not substantive due
process, is applicable; because a Fourth Amendment claim in this case does not present a new
context for a Bivens action; and because § 1983 and Bivens claims are analyzed similarly, the
Court does not reach the question of whether Afyare’s claim should be brought under § 1983 or
Bivens. See Osman Op. 13-17.
F.3d at 1312; Hawkins, 759 F.3d at 959. If, setting aside the false statements (or adding in the
omitted information), there was no probable cause to arrest, then the arrest violated the Fourth
Amendment. See Williams, 772 F.3d at 1312-13; Hawkins, 759 F.3d at 958-59; HernandezCuevas, 723 F.3d at 105. Probable cause “exists when the totality of the circumstances at the
time of the arrest are sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that the defendant has
committed or is committing an offense.” Greenman v. Jessen, 787 F.3d 882, 888 (8th Cir. 2015)
Where a plaintiff alleges that she was arrested without probable cause and the defendant
asserts the qualified immunity defense, courts ask whether there was “arguable probable cause to
arrest.” Stewart v. Wagner, 836 F.3d 978, 984 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing New v. Denver, 787 F.3d
895, 899 (8th Cir. 2015)) (applying this standard to a Fourth Amendment claim for detention
based on allegedly false and incomplete information in a probable cause statement). “[T]he issue
for immunity purposes is not probable cause in fact but arguable probable cause, that is, whether
the officer should have known that the arrest violated plaintiff’s clearly established right.” New,
787 F.3d at 899. “It is clearly established that the Fourth Amendment requires a truthful factual
showing sufficient to constitute probable cause before an arrest warrant can issue.” Peterson v.
City of Plymouth, 60 F.3d 469, 477 (8th Cir. 1995) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
a. Analysis of Afyare’s Claim Under the Fourth Amendment
In considering whether Afyare plausibly alleges a Fourth Amendment violation, the
Court disregards mere conclusory statements, focuses on well-pleaded factual allegations, and
applies its judicial experience and common sense. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79
(2009). The Court also properly considers the Tennessee Case court record in assessing the
pleadings. See, e.g., Greenman, 787 F.3d at 887.
Afyare’s core allegations are very similar to Osman’s, including the ample citations to
comments by the Tennessee Case district court and a related appellate decision. In the Osman
Opinion, the Court examines several orders and memoranda by the district court and two
separate Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals opinions concerning the Tennessee Case, some of which
both Osman and Afyare cite. See Osman Op. 25-33. For instance, like Osman, Afyare’s
allegations point to the jury’s and the district court’s acquittals 5 of the nine defendants who went
to trial in Spring 2012. See AC ¶ 56. Like Osman, he cites to the district court’s post-trial order
on the Rule 29 motions. See AC ¶ 64 (citing Adan, 913 F. Supp. 2d 555, 589 n.10 (M.D. Tenn.
2012)). In Osman’s case, the Court found that some of these statements by judicial officers are
remarkable, and that taken all together along with other well-pleaded facts, they nudge Osman’s
Fourth Amendment claim as to Weyker over Iqbal’s plausibility line. The Court notes that none
of these judicial statements refer even obliquely to Bandemer. The Court further found that the
fact that Osman was also indicted on charges of obstruction of justice relating to the prosecution
of the allegedly fabricated sex-trafficking-conspiracy case does not per se doom her Fourth
Amendment claim. See Osman Op. 35-37. Afyare’s case, however, is different.
Weyker and Bandemer argue that even if Afyare plausibly alleges that Weyker fabricated
evidence material to the indictment for sex-trafficking-related charges, the fact that he was also
indicted in non-trafficking-related charges defeats his Fourth Amendment claim. Weyker and
Bandemer argue that Afyare fails to plausibly allege that there was not probable cause to arrest
him on the other crimes for which he was charged. See DOJ Br. 65-68. They point out in their
reply papers that he and the other plaintiffs represented by the same counsel fail to address this
argument at all. DOJ Reply 31-32.
The Court uses the word “acquittal” for consistency with the Tennessee Case opinions
and the pleadings but has some reservations about it. See Osman Op. 23-25.
Afyare’s complaint does not acknowledge that he was charged in the First Superseding
Indictment in Count 18 with a crime unconnected to any alleged sex-trafficking, and as noted,
his opposition papers did not respond to Weyker and Bandemer’s argument that his Fourth
Amendment claim fails in light of that count. 6 Afyare fails to plausibly allege—or even
conclusorily state—that there was no probable cause to indict and arrest him in November 2010
on that count. The indictment included some specific allegations about him in support those
counts. For example, Count 18 alleges that on August 15, 2009, he used a counterfeit credit card
to make a purchase for several hundred dollars at a Walgreens and a counterfeit card to make
another purchase for over $1000 at a Wal-Mart. FSI ¶¶ 130-31. Afyare does not allege that
these allegations are false or that Weyker or Bandemer fabricated evidence to support the grand
jury’s indictments of him in Count 18. The grand jury’s indictment of him in that count
“conclusively determines the existence of probable cause” on that count, Kaley v. United States,
134 S. Ct. 1090, 1097 (2014) (citation omitted), at least absent any plausible allegations that the
indictment on that count was tainted by fabrication of evidence. 7 Afyare’s more general,
conclusory allegations—e.g., that he would not have been detained absent fabricated evidence,
AC ¶¶ 1, 61—cannot overcome the hurdle posed by his indictment in Count 18. Finally, the
Court cannot reasonably conclude from the results of the trial of other co-defendants on other
counts, or the government’s dismissal of charges after an adverse appellate decision affirming
the grant of Rule 29 motions on the basis of a variance, that there was no probable cause to indict
Afyare on any counts at all.
He was also charged with obstruction of justice in two counts, which he again fails to
acknowledge. The indictment included a specific allegation about him in support of these two
counts, but analysis of those charges is unnecessary in light of Count 18.
The Court further notes that at least one of his co-defendants pleaded guilty to the
credit-card conspiracy charged in Count 18. See United States v. Nur, No. 3:10cr260, Dkt. No.
2870 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 5, 2012).
Therefore, Afyare’s complaint must fail. Even if there were no probable cause to arrest
him based on the allegedly spurious sex-trafficking-conspiracy charges, there is no Fourth
Amendment violation where there is probable cause to arrest “for the violation of some other
law.” Greenman, 787 F.3d at 889 (citation omitted); see also Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146,
153 (2004) (holding that there is no Fourth Amendment violation if there is probable cause to
arrest based on any criminal offense, even if the officer’s subjective reason for arresting was a
different and unrelated offense); Keil v. Triveline, 661 F.3d 981, 986 (8th Cir. 2011). He
therefore “has failed to ‘make out a violation of a constitutional right’ in the first instance.”
Greenman, 787 F.3d at 888; see also Keil, 661 F.3d at 986.
Defendants Weyker and Bandemer are entitled to qualified immunity. Afyare has failed
to plausibly allege a constitutional violation. Moreover, as to Bandemer, Afyare has not pleaded
adequate facts to support an inference that he directly fabricated evidence.
b. Supervisory Liability
Afyare also sues Bandemer and John Does 3-4 in their individual capacities as
supervisors. He alleges that they were deliberately indifferent to or authorized Weyker’s and
Bandemer’s alleged violations of his constitutional rights. See AC ¶ 65.
A supervisor sued in his or her individual capacity in a § 1983 or Bivens suit “is only
liable for his or her own misconduct.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677; see also S.M. v. Krigbaum, 808
F.3d 335, 340 (8th Cir. 2015). “When a supervising official who had no direct participation in
an alleged constitutional violation is sued for failure to train or supervise the offending actor, the
supervisor is entitled to qualified immunity unless plaintiff proves that the supervisor (1)
received notice of a pattern of unconstitutional acts committed by a subordinate, and (2) was
deliberately indifferent to or authorized those acts.” Krigbaum, 808 F.3d at 340 (citing Livers,
700 F.3d at 355). “This rigorous standard requires proof that the supervisor had notice of a
pattern of conduct by the subordinate that violated a clearly established constitutional right.
Allegations of generalized notice are insufficient.” Id. The notice prong requires that “[t]o
impose supervisory liability, other misconduct [allegedly giving the supervisor notice] must be
very similar to the conduct giving rise to liability.” Id. (quoting Livers, 700 F.3d at 356).
First, given the Court’s conclusion that Afyare has not adequately alleged a constitutional
violation by Weyker or Bandemer, the supervisory liability claims “automatically fail for lack of
an underlying constitutional violation.” Mendoza v. U.S. Immig’n & Customs Enf’t, 849 F.3d
408, 420 (8th Cir. 2017) (citing City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 798-99 (1986)).
Moreover, Afyare’s complaint, which is very similar to Osman’s complaint as to the
supervisory liability allegations, likewise contains few allegations—and fewer well-pleaded
facts—regarding supervisory liability. Like Osman, he alleges that Bandemer and the John Does
had supervisory responsibility over Weyker, see, e.g., AC ¶ 65; that the investigation was very
important to the St. Paul Police Department vice unit, AC ¶ 41; and that “[b]y at least February
15, 2012, these [supervisory] defendants had actual knowledge” of Weyker’s fabrications based
on a February 2012 memorandum-order at Dkt. No. 1392 and other district court orders, id.
¶¶ 63-64, 66. Like Osman, Afyare cites United States v. Mohamud, No. 3:10cr260, 2013 WL
1935506, at *11 n. 6 (M.D. Tenn. May 9, 2013), and United States v. Adan, 913 F. Supp. 2d 555,
589 n.10 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 19, 2012), in support of his supervisory liability notice allegations.
AC ¶¶ 63-64.
As explained in the Osman Opinion, these allegations do not sufficiently plead
supervisory liability based on notice. See Osman Op. 37-41. Nor do they establish a pattern of
unconstitutional acts by Weyker. Ignoring conclusory or unsupported allegations, Afyare does
not allege any other similar acts by Weyker or Bandemer before the Tennessee Case
investigation that could show a pattern about which Bandemer (as Weyker’s supervisor) or the
John Does (as Weyker’s and/or Bandemer’s supervisors) personally knew.
The allegations fail to state a claim for supervisory liability, and Bandemer and John
Does 3-4 are entitled to qualified immunity as to these counts.
c. Municipal Liability
Afyare sues St. Paul as well as Bandemer and the John Does in their official capacities
for municipal liability under Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S.
658 (1978). “[A] local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely
by its employees or agents.” Id. at 694. “Instead,” a municipality is liable “when execution of a
government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts
may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury . . . .” Id.
A plaintiff therefore must show that there is an “official” policy or a “custom or usage
with the force of law.” Kelly v. City of Omaha, 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2016). A plaintiff
must plead “allegations, reference, or language by which one could begin to draw an inference
that the conduct complained of . . . resulted from an unconstitutional policy or custom.”
Crumpley-Patterson v. Trinity Lutheran Hosp., 388 F.3d 588, 591 (8th Cir. 2004) (citation
omitted). Absent allegations of an official policy that was the moving force behind the violation,
“[m]isconduct among a municipality’s employees must be ‘continuing, widespread, [and]
persistent’ to establish such a custom.” Kelly, 813 F.3d at 1075 (citation omitted). Also, “the
municipality will not be liable unless policymaking officials exhibit ‘[d]eliberate indifference to
or tacit authorization of such conduct . . . after notice to the officials of that misconduct.” Id. at
1075-76 (citation omitted). The question is whether a “governmental policy or custom was the
‘moving force’ that led to the deprivation of [the plaintiff’s] constitutional rights.” Speer v. City
of Wynne, 276 F.3d 980, 986 (8th Cir. 2002). Even if no individual employee is found liable, a
municipality might be liable, but only where “the combined actions of multiple officials or
employees may give rise to a constitutional violation.” Id.
Afyare does not adequately support his conclusory municipal liability allegations with
well-pleaded facts. He does not allege with well-pleaded facts that Weyker or other St. Paul
Police Department employees fabricated evidence in other investigations, nor that policymaking
officials in the department were aware of any previous incidents of fabrication of evidence. He
does not allege well-pleaded facts to support a theory that multiple St. Paul Police Department
members—not even Weyker and Bandemer—combined to violate his rights. Nor does he allege
facts that would demonstrate an official department policy that moved officers to fabricate
evidence or coerce witnesses and mislead prosecutors and grand juries to secure indictments. He
also does not plausibly allege any such custom because, among other reasons, he has not
adequately alleged notice, as explained above. The supervisory defendants sued in their official
capacities, and the City of St. Paul, are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.
Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on all counts, because Afyare’s complaint
fails to plausibly allege a violation of his constitutional rights. The Court grants the Defendants’
motions and dismisses with prejudice. See Ulrich v. Pope Cty., 715 F.3d 1054, 1060-61 (8th Cir.
2013); C.N. v. Willmar Pub. Sch., Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 347, 591 F.3d 624, 635 (8th Cir. 2010).
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated above, IT
IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendants Heather Weyker and John Bandemer’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 35]
2. Defendant City of Saint Paul’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Dkt. No. 44] is
3. Plaintiff Abdullahi Sade Afyare’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: August 9, 2017
s/ Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?