United States District Court, D. Minnesota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
BRISBOIS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge pursuant to an order of referral, [Docket No. 15], made
in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B), and upon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss,
[Docket No. 9], and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend
Complaint, [Docket No. 21]. Briefing was completed on both
Motions on September 19, 2017, and the Motions were taken
under advisement on September 20, 2017. (See, Order,
[Docket No. 23]).
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend
Complaint, [Docket No. 21], is DENIED. In
addition, the undersigned recommends that Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 9], be
GRANTED, and the case be DISMISSED
BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
following facts are taken from the Minnesota Court of
Appeals' opinion in State v. Yang, 814 N.W.2d
716, 717-18 (Minn.App. 2012).
On a November 2010 afternoon, [City of St. Paul Police
Department] Officers Michael McNeill and Seth Wilson were
patrolling the St. Paul Frogtown neighborhood when a police
dispatcher relayed a 911 report that an Asian male wearing
red pants had a gun at a particular residential address in
their area. The officers recognized the address, associating
it with drugs and arrests.
Officers McNeill and Wilson, and others, arrived and saw four
or five men of Asian descent entering the front yard from the
porch, one of the men wearing red pants. The officers
immediately took cover behind their squad cars, drew their
handguns, and ordered the men to the ground. Officer Wilson
handcuffed the man wearing red pants, Theng
Yang, and asked him where the gun was. Yang
told him that it was in his coat pocket. Officer Wilson found
a handgun there. . . .
Because he was previously convicted of a felony, Yang could
not lawfully possess any firearm anywhere, so the state
charged him with unlawful firearm possession. Yang moved the
district court to suppress evidence of the gun, arguing that
the detaining police officers lacked a reasonable,
articulable suspicion that he was involved in criminal
activity. The district court denied the motion, deeming the
stop to have been justified.
Yang waived his right to a jury and the state submitted the
case to the district court judge in a stipulated-facts trial.
The district court found Yang guilty and convicted him of
unlawful firearm possession. It sentenced him to 60 months in
prison over his motion for a downward dispositional
sentencing departure. Yang appeal[ed], challenging the denial
of his motion to suppress and the denial of his sentencing
Id. at 717-718.
opinion issued June 18, 2012, the Minnesota Court of Appeals
concluded that the detention and search had violated
Yang's Fourth Amendment rights. Id. at 720-22.
Accordingly, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed his
conviction “because the unconstitutional detention and
search produced the evidence that led to his
April 13, 2017, while imprisoned for a subsequent, unrelated
conviction, Yang initiated the case presently before this
Court by filing his Complaint, [Docket No. 1]. Yang named as
defendants the City of St. Paul Police Department, Officer
McNeill, Officer Wilson, and Sergeant Matthew Toupal
(hereinafter collectively referred to as
“Defendants”). (Compl., [Docket No. 1], 4).
Attached to Yang's Complaint is a supplemental
offense/incident report authored by Sergeant Toupal related
to his investigation into the events of November 2010, and
Yang alleges that Sergeant Toupal “decided to accept
the statement of the two other officers and then decided to
press charges” against Yang which ultimately led to
Yang's 2010 conviction. ([Docket No. 1-1], 2; [Docket
No.1-2], 19-20). Yang asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for the violation of his Fourth Amendment rights in 2010
as recognized by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and he seeks
compensatory damages in the amount of $750, 000 as well as
punitive damages and costs. (Compl., [Docket No. 1], 4-5;
[Docket No. 1-1], 1).
17, 2017, Defendants filed the present Motion to Dismiss,
[Docket No. 9], in which they seek dismissal under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that
Yang's claims are barred by the applicable statute of
limitations. (See, Mem. in Supp., [Docket No. 11],
1). United States District Judge Joan N. Ericksen thereafter
referred the Motion to Dismiss to the undersigned for report
and recommendation. (Order, [Docket No. 15]).
September 5, 2017, Yang filed a Response in Opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 19], and the present Motion to
Amend his Complaint, [Docket No. 21]. Briefing on both
Motions was completed on September 19, 2017, at which time