Joiner v. Metro Transit Police et al
ORDER denying 32 Motion to Alter/Amend/Supplement Pleadings; granting 34 Motion to Dismiss/General; denying 37 Motion to Alter/Amend/Supplement Pleadings; denying 42 Motion to Alter/Amend/Supplement Pleadings; denying 48 Motion for Summary Judgment(Written Opinion) Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 4/20/2017. (DLO)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 16-2006(DSD/FLN)
Eugene Vincent Joiner,
Metro Transit Police
Department, et al.,
Eugene Vincent Joiner, 1516 West Lake Street, Suite 200-D,
Minneapolis, MN 55408, plaintiff pro se.
Nathan Midolo, Esq. and Iverson Reuvers Condon, 9321 Ensign
Avenue South, Bloomington, MN 55438, counsel for defendant
Metro Transit Police Department; Christiana Martenson and
James W. Keeler, Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, 300 South
6th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487, counsel for defendant
Hennepin County Detention Center.
This matter is before the court upon the motion to strike and
dismiss by defendant Hennepin County and the motions to amend and
for summary judgment by pro se plaintiff Eugene Joiner.
review of the file, record, and proceedings herein, and for the
following reasons, the court grants the motion to strike and
dismiss and denies the motions to amend and for summary judgment.
This civil rights dispute arises from Joiner’s arrest by Metro
Transit police officers on April 10, 2013, for having an open
alcoholic beverage in public.
ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 1.
transferred to the Hennepin County Public Safety Facility and
booked into the adult detention center (ADC).
Id. ¶ 2.
alleges that personnel at ADC failed to tend to his medical needs,
battered him without provocation, and left him in a cell without
access to medical or other assistance.
Joiner filed this action on June 20, 2016, against the Metro
Transit Police, Hennepin County Detention Center, and County Board,
alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fifth, Eighth,
Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. On August 18, 2016, Joiner filed
two first amended complaints; one of the complaints raised claims
against Metro Transit [ECF No. 9] and the other raised claims
against Hennepin County Detention Center, Hennepin County Board of
Directors, Hennepin County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Richard
Stanek, Deputy Annette Parker, Deputy Andrew Carlson, Deputy Thomas
Poser, Sergeant Angela Johnson, and Deputy James Mauer [ECF No.
10]. On August 22, 2016, Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel ordered
Joiner to file a consolidated amended complaint incorporating all
of his allegations against all defendants by September 5, 2016.
ECF No. 11.
Joiner failed to do so.
dismiss all claims against it.
Hennepin County then moved to
ECF No. 15.
respond to the motion or appear at the hearing.
Joiner failed to
The court granted
the motion and dismissed Hennepin County from the lawsuit without
ECF No. 27 at 2.
The court treated the originally
filed complaint as the operative pleading given Joiner’s failure to
file a consolidated amended complaint as ordered by Magistrate
Id. at 1-2.
Then, on February 9, 2017, Joiner filed a “First Consolidated
Amended Complaint” naming Metro Transit Authority, Metro Transit
Police Department, and all nine Hennepin County defendants also
named in the first amended complaint.
See ECF Nos. 9 and 28.
February 24, Joiner filed a “Second Consolidated Amended Complaint”
against Metro Transit Authority, Metro Transit Police, Hennepin
County Board, Hennepin County Detention Center, and Hennepin County
ECF No. 32.
On February 27, Magistrate Judge
Noel directed the clerk of court to treat the second consolidated
amended complaint as a motion to amend the complaint.
ECF No. 33.
On March 2, Metro Transit answered the first consolidated amended
ECF No. 40.
The Hennepin County defendants1 now move to strike the first
consolidated amended complaint and dismiss them from this action.
Joiner moves to amend the complaint consistent with his proposed
second consolidated amended complaint and for summary judgment.
Motion to Strike and Dismiss
Hennepin County moves to strike the first consolidated amended
The Hennepin County defendants include the Hennepin County
Board, Hennepin County Detention Center, Hennepin County Sheriff’s
Office, and officers and individuals employed by those entities.
complaint and dismiss Joiner’s claims against it in that complaint.
previously dismissed Hennepin County from the case, Joiner is
foreclosed from proceeding against the Hennepin County defendants
in this action.3
As a result, the allegations against the Hennepin
County defendants are stricken from the first consolidated amended
The Hennepin County defendants shall also be stricken
from the case caption.
Motion to Amend
The court shall provide leave to amend “when justice so
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Leave to amend, however, is
not an absolute right and “undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the non-moving party, or
futility of the amendment may be grounds to deny a motion to
amend.” Doe v. Cassel, 403 F.3d 986, 991 (8th Cir. 2005) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). An amendment is futile when
it would not survive a motion to dismiss.
In re Senior Cottages of
Am., LLC, 482 F.3d 997, 1001 (8th Cir. 2007).
Metro Transit, the only remaining defendant in this case, has
answered the first consolidated amended complaint and is prepared
The court cannot “dismiss” Hennepin County from the case
because it has already been dismissed. ECF No. 27 at 2.
The case was dismissed without prejudice, so Joiner may
bring a separate action against Hennepin County.
to proceed to discovery.
Joiner nevertheless seeks to amend his
complaint again, this time to add a conspiracy claim under 42
U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986.
He argues that Hennepin County and Metro
Transit conspired to deprive him of his rights.
County is no longer a defendant in this case, however, Joiner has
no basis on which to proceed with the conspiracy claim.
result, the amendment would be futile and the motion to amend must
The first consolidated amended complaint remains the
operative complaint in this action.
III. Motion for Summary Judgment
Joiner also moves for summary judgment, arguing, without
sufficient factual or legal support, that defendants have no valid
defense to his claim.
The court summarily denies the motion
because Joiner has failed to support his motion as required.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (internal
quotations omitted) (“[A] party seeking summary judgment always
bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of
the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions
on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.”).
The court also notes that the conspiracy claim would be
time-barred in any event. See 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (“[N]o action under
the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not
commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.”).
Accordingly, based on above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
The motion to strike and dismiss [ECF No. 34] is granted
as set forth above;
The motions to amend or supplement [ECF Nos. 32, 37, 42]
are denied; and
The motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 48] is denied
Dated: April 21, 2017
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
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?