Joiner v. Metro Transit Police et al

Filing 93

ORDER denying 77 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 86 Motion for Summary Judgment(Written Opinion) Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 6/4/2018. (DLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 16-2006(DSD/TNL)
Eugene Vincent Joiner,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

Metro Transit Police
Department, et al.,
Defendants.
Eugene Vincent Joiner, 5201 Brookdale Drive, Brooklyn Park, MN
55443, plaintiff pro se.
Jason M. Hiveley, Esq. and Iverson Reuvers Condon, 9321 Ensign
Avenue South, Bloomington, MN 55438, counsel for defendants.
This matter is before the court upon the cross motions for
summary judgment by pro se plaintiff Eugene Joiner and defendants
Metro Transit Police Department, Officer Geoffrey Wyatt, Officer
Waheid Siraach (Sitonch), and Metro Transit Authority.

After a

review of the file, record, and proceedings herein, and for the
following reasons, the court denies Joiner’s motion and grants
defendants’ motion.

BACKGROUND
This civil rights dispute arises from Joiner’s arrest by Metro
Transit police officers for having an open alcoholic beverage in
public.

Am. Compl. [ECF No. 28] ¶ 1; Hiveley Aff. Ex. 5 at 3.

On

April 10, 2013, Officer Wyatt, who was on patrol with his partner
Officer

Sitonch,

observed

Joiner

carrying

a

brown

paper

bag

containing what appeared to be an open bottle of alcohol.
Aff. Ex. 5 at 2.

Hiveley

Officer Wyatt stopped Joiner and asked to see

what was in the bag.

Id.

When Officer Wyatt pulled the bottle

out, he noticed that about one-third of the alcohol was gone.
Joiner then became argumentative and uncooperative.

Id.

Id.

Officer

Wyatt decided to arrest Joiner given his attitude and because he
believed Joiner would re-offend if not detained.

Id.

Officer

Wyatt arrested Joiner for loitering with an open bottle, handcuffed
him, and took him to the Hennepin County Detention Center.

Id.;

Am. Compl. ¶ 2.
Joiner alleges that he waited in the squad car for five to ten
minutes when he arrived at the detention center and that, during
that time, Officer Wyatt read papers and transcripts relating to
Joiner’s housing court case.1
50:6-51:15.

Joiner Dep. at 44:8-10; 47:9-22;

He also alleges that he was handcuffed too tightly,

which hurt his wrists and arms, but he did not complain of any pain
until he was in the sally port at the detention center.
Dep. at 40:22-44:10.

Joiner

Once at the jail, the detention center staff

took over and Joiner had no further interaction with the Metro
Transit officers.

1

Joiner
was arrested.
that Officer
constitutional
As a result,
withdrawn.

Joiner Dep. at 48:19-24; 49:20-24.

Joiner

had the housing court case papers with him when he
Id. at 51:11-15. Although Joiner initially claimed
Wyatt’s review of the papers violated his
rights, he now concedes otherwise. Id. at 51:16-18.
the court considers that aspect of his claim
2

alleges that staff at the detention center denied him needed
medical attention and otherwise violated his constitutional rights.
He was released from custody the next day and the charges were
ultimately dismissed.
deposition,

Joiner

Joiner Dep. at 17:2-5; 55:17-22.

admitted

that

he

was

injured

County’s actions and not those of Metro Transit.

by

In his
Hennepin

Id. at 54:13-20.

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
prejudice.

ECF No. 27 at 2.

The court treated the originally

3

filed complaint as the operative pleading given Joiner’s failure to
file a consolidated amended complaint as ordered by Magistrate
Judge Noel.

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.

On

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
Sheriff’s Office.

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
complaint.2

ECF No. 40.

Thereafter, the court reaffirmed Hennepin County’s dismissal
from the case, denied Joiner’s motion for summary judgment, and
denied Joiner’s subsequent attempt to again amend the complaint.
See ECF Nos. 58, 90.

Defendants also took Joiner’s deposition and

engaged in written discovery.

Joiner now again moves for summary

judgment as do the remaining Metro Transit defendants.

2

The first consolidated amended complaint remains the
operative complaint. In that complaint, he asserts the following
claims:
violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fifth, Eighth,
Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. See ECF No. 28. He seeks more
than $7 million in damages plus punitive damages. Id.
4

DISCUSSION
I.

Joiner’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Joiner

moves

for

summary

judgment,

arguing,

without

any

factual or legal support, that there are no factual disputes
precluding judgment in his favor.3

As Joiner is aware from the

court’s previous order, ECF No. 58, a summary judgment motion must
be supported by a factual basis. See 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.”).

Joiner’s failure to point to

any facts in support of his motion - including his own testimony
from his deposition - warrants the denial of his motion.
III. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment
because Joiner has failed to articulate any claim against them.
The court agrees.

Joiner alleges that defendants violated various

3

The only support Joiner provides for his motion is a
request to file a second amended complaint, which is identical to
a motion he filed on February 27, 2017. ECF Nos. 37, 78. The
attached proposed amended complaint is also identical to the one
filed in connection with the earlier motion. See id. The court
denied the first such motion, ECF No. 58, and will not revisit that
decision.
5

constitutional amendments, but when pressed in his deposition to
explain how they harmed him, he admitted that he believes he was
injured by Hennepin County and not by any of the Metro Transit
defendants.4

Joiner Dep. at 54:13-20.

This admission is fatal to

his claim and mandates dismissal of this case with prejudice. Even
without his admission, Joiner’s allegations against defendants are
insufficient to support his claims.

At most, he claims that

Officer Wyatt should not have arrested him and that the handcuffs
were uncomfortable.

Under the circumstances presented, neither

claim comes close to rising to the level of a constitutional
violation.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 77] is

denied;
2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 86] is

granted; and
3.

The case is dismissed with prejudice.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: June 4, 2018

s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

4

Joiner also admitted that Officer Sitonch did nothing to
violate his rights. Joiner Dep. at 37:24-38:21.
6