O'Neal v. City of New Brighton, The
0:12-cv-02549
D. MinnesotaMar 1, 2013Background
- Plaintiff O'Neal sues City of New Brighton, Bengtson, Hughes & Costello, and Unknown Vehicle Owner over a no-proof-of-insurance citation and related proceedings.
- Hughes & Costello moves to dismiss; City of New Brighton and Bengtson also move to dismiss; plaintiff seeks leave to file a second amended complaint and to dismiss Grosshans from the case.
- Allegations center on Bengtson’s conduct during a traffic stop, the recharging of the citation, and alleged training/supervision failures by the City.
- Plaintiff asserts §1983 claims including conspiracy, abuse of process, denial of access to the courts, and negligence, some later voluntarily dismissed or narrowed.
- Court considers motions; concludes Hughes & Costello entitled to absolute immunity; Younger abstention not available to wholly dispose of the case; various claims against defendants are dismissed; service on Unknown Vehicle Owner is at issue.
- Plaintiff must serve Unknown Vehicle Owner within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hughes & Costello has absolute immunity | Hughes acted as City Attorney in prosecutorial role. | Hughes & Costello, through Hughes, enjoys absolute immunity for prosecutorial acts. | Hughes & Costello granted; absolute immunity applies. |
| Whether Younger abstention applies to the case | Court should abstain given ongoing state proceedings to conserve state interests. | Younger abstention would apply to equitable relief; claims include legal relief. | Younger abstention not applicable to entire case; court proceeds; only stay would be appropriate if applied. |
| Whether Bengtson states a cognizable §1983 claim against him | Bengtson violated state statute and engaged in abuse of process and negligence. | §1983 claim insufficient; state-law claims do not support §1983; official immunity applies. | Claim dismissed; Bengtson has official immunity; state-law claims barred. |
| Whether New Brighton can be held liable under §1983 | City failed to train/supervise and is liable for Bengtson/Hughes actions. | No underlying constitutional violation; no Monell liability; no training/supervision liability. | Dismissed; no Monell or underlying constitutional violation; training claims fail. |
| Whether amendments or claims against Grosshans/Unknown Vehicle Owner should proceed | Should be permitted to amend; Unknown Vehicle Owner still party; possible defamation claims. | Amendment futile; service issues with Unknown Vehicle Owner; defense on libel/SL claim. | Leaves to amend denied as futile; Unknown Vehicle Owner must be served within 14 days or dismissed without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute immunity for prosecutors in initiating/prosecuting)
- Webster v. Gibson, 913 F.2d 510 (8th Cir. 1990) (limits of absolute immunity for prosecutors)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (local governments not vicariously liable under §1983; must have underlying constitutional violation)
- Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996) (stay instead of dismissal when abstaining under Younger)
- Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Stroud, 179 F.3d 598 (8th Cir. 1999) (application of abstention standards in parallel proceedings)
- Bigelow v. Galway, 281 N.W.2d 835 (Minn. 1978) (elements of intentional torts; abuse of process context)
- Royster v. Nichols, 698 F.3d 681 (8th Cir. 2012) (need underlying constitutional violation for §1983 claim against municipal liability)
- Kelly v. City of Minneapolis, 598 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. 1999) (malice standard for official immunity in Minnesota)