United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Vincent Joiner, plaintiff pro se.
Midolo, Esq. and Iverson Reuvers Condon, counsel for
defendant Metro Transit Police Department; Christiana
Martenson and James W. Keeler, Hennepin County Attorney
counsel for defendant Hennepin County Detention Center.
S. Doty, Judge United States District Court
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.
After a 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
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. Joiner
was transferred to the Hennepin County Public Safety Facility
and booked into the adult detention center (ADC).
Id. ¶ 2. Joiner 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. Id.
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. Hennepin County
then moved to dismiss all claims against it. ECF No. 15.
Joiner failed to respond to the motion or appear at the
hearing. The court granted the motion and dismissed Hennepin
County from the lawsuit without prejudice. 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 Judge
Noel. Id. at 1-2.
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. ECF No.
Hennepin County defendants 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
Motion to Strike and Dismiss
County moves to strike the first consolidated amended
complaint and dismiss Joiner's claims against it in that
complaint. The court grants the motion to
strike. Because the court previously dismissed
Hennepin County from the case, Joiner is foreclosed from
proceeding against the Hennepin County defendants in this
action. As a result, the allegations against the
Hennepin County defendants are stricken from the first
consolidated amended complaint. The Hennepin County
defendants shall also be stricken from the case caption.
Motion to Amend
court shall provide leave to amend “when justice so
requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Leave to amend,
however, is not an absolute right and “undue delay, bad
faith, or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments 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 ...