United States District Court, D. Minnesota
M. Baudry and Amanda R. Cefalu, KUTACK ROCK LLP, Ian Bratlie,
and Teresa J. Nelson, for plaintiff.
M. Zipf, LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES, for Defendants Nicolas
Oman and the City of Coon Rapids.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. TUNHEIM CHIEF JUDGE
substantial number of Latinos - both U.S. citizens and
foreign-born residents - are less likely to contact the
police or report crimes, even when they are victims, because
they fear that police will inquire about their immigration
status. While the U.S. immigrant population is
extremely vulnerable to crime,  police mistrust is common within
immigrant communities. In Minnesota, law-enforcement agencies
fear that the immigrant community's distrust of police
results in increased crime against immigrants and decreased
reporting of such crimes.
law-enforcement conduct alleged in this case is precisely the
type of conduct that further sows the Minnesota immigrant
community's distrust of law-enforcement agencies.
Plaintiff Myriam Parada resides in Ramsey, Minnesota. In July
2017, Parada was the victim of an automotive accident. Coon
Rapids Police Officer Nicolas Oman arrested Parada for
driving without a license. While detained at the Anoka County
jail, Defendants contacted Immigration & Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) and transferred Parada into
ICE custody. Parada is now in removal proceedings.
alleges that she was unlawfully arrested and detained by
Defendants because of her race, nationality, and immigration
status. She brings this § 1983 action against Anoka
County, Anoka County Sheriff James Stewart, the City of Coon
Rapids,  Oman, and two unknown defendants for
violations of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Parada also brings state-law claims for violations of the
Minnesota Constitution and false imprisonment.
Rapids and Oman (collectively, “Coon Rapids
Defendants”) move to dismiss Parada's claims
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The
Court will deny the Coon Rapids Defendants' motion with
respect to Parada's Fourth Amendment claims,
equal-protection claim, Minnesota Constitution claims, and
false-imprisonment claim. However, the Court will grant the
Coon Rapids Defendants' motion with respect to
Parada's due-process claims, because it will conclude
that they are duplicative of her Fourth Amendment claims.
alleges the following facts. (Compl., March 22, 2018, Docket
- a Mexican citizen - resides in Ramsey,
Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 13, 34-35.) On July
25, 2017, Parada was driving her siblings and cousins home
from her younger sister's birthday party. (Id.
¶ 23.) Around 6:40 p.m., a Caucasian driver rear-ended
Parada. (Id. ¶ 26.) The other driver called the
police, and Oman arrived at the scene around 6:46 p.m.
(Id. ¶¶ 28-29.) Parada called her parents,
who came to the scene. (Id. ¶ 27.)
asked Parada for her driver's license, which she did not
have. (Id. ¶¶ 33-34.) Parada gave Oman her
proof of insurance and her Matrícula Card - an
official identification card issued by the Mexican Consulate.
(Id. ¶¶ 34-35.) The Matrícula Card
lists Parada's full name, date of birth, and U.S.
address. (Id. ¶ 35.) It also has a recent photo
of Parada and security features to ensure its authenticity.
(Id.) Parada confirmed that all the information on
her card was true and accurate, as did her step-father.
(Id. ¶¶ 37-38.) Her step-father told Oman
that he was the registered owner of the car and gave Oman his
name, which Oman ran through his database. (Id.
went to his vehicle and spoke with Anoka County staff on his
personal phone for several minutes. (Id. ¶ 39.)
When Oman returned, he told Parada that his supervisor told
him that he needed to “bring her in to get her
prints.” (Id. ¶¶ 40-41.) In the
police report, Oman wrote that he “transported Parada
to jail since I was also unable to positively identify
her.” (Id. ¶ 44.)
brought Parada to the Anoka County Jail around 7:20 p.m.
(Id. ¶ 48.) Officers handcuffed Parada, patted
her down, took her mugshot, and placed her in a cell.
(Id. ¶¶ 49-52.) According to the jail
records, Parada was free to leave on that same day, July 25.
(Id. ¶¶ 54, 57.)
Defendants did not release Parada that day. (Id.
¶ 59.) At approximately 11:00 p.m. on July 25, the Anoka
County Sheriff's Office brought Parada to one of the
unknown defendants, who questioned her for several minutes.
(Id. ¶ 60.) At approximately 11:30 p.m., Parada
was again brought to the unknown defendant to speak with ICE
officers. (Id. ¶ 61.) Defendants did not advise
Parada that she could refuse to speak with the ICE officers.
(Id. ¶ 84.) The ICE officers questioned Parada
about her immigration status. (Id. ¶ 62-63.)
Parada asked the unknown defendant whether she needed an
attorney, and he told her to ask ICE. When Parada asked ICE
the same question, an ICE officer replied that “it goes
faster without a lawyer.” (Id. ¶¶
64-66.) Parada answered the ICE officers' questions about
how she entered the United States. (Id. ¶ 67.)
Parada was then taken back to her cell. (Id. ¶
68.) An hour later, they took her fingerprints. (Id.
next day, July 26, ICE sent Anoka County an I-200 Warrant for
Arrest of an Alien (“ICE Warrant”) and an I-247
ICE Detainer. (Id. ¶¶ 69-70.) The ICE
Warrant was unsigned and the ICE Detainer was stamped with
“Draft Not Complete” on every page. (Id.
¶¶ 70, 87.) Neither ICE nor Defendants served
Parada with copies of these documents. (Id. ¶
approximately 2:00 a.m. on July 26, Defendants brought Parada
out of her cell, handed her a citation for driving without a
license, and handed her over to two ICE agents. (Id.
¶¶ 74-75.) The ICE agents took her to Sherburne
County Jail. (Id. ¶¶ 75-76.) An hour after
transferring custody of Parada to ICE, Anoka County
Defendants notified her family. (Id. ¶ 79.)
Parada is currently in removal proceedings. (Id.
alleges that Coon Rapids and the Anoka County Sheriff's
Office have policies and customs which require officers to
detain foreign-born persons while awaiting transfer to
immigration authorities. (Id. ¶¶ 112, 123,
137, 143, 145, 147, 149, 158, 163, 170.) She also alleges
that Coon Rapids and the Anoka County Sheriff's Office
have failed to train their employees on the Fourth Amendment
and the rights of immigrants (Id.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court views the
complaint in “the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party.” Lonaker v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 872
F.Supp.2d 816, 819 (D. Minn. 2012). The Court considers all
facts alleged in the complaint as true to determine whether
the complaint states “a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
“Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely
consistent with' a defendant's liability, it
‘stops short of the line between possibility and
plausibility, '” and therefore must be dismissed.
Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 554, 557 (2007)). Although the Court accepts the
complaint's factual allegations as true, it is “not
bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a
factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
(quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286
(1986)). Therefore, to survive a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must provide more than “‘labels and
conclusions' or a ‘formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action.'” Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
parties have submitted evidence outside the pleadings in
support of their arguments. “If, on a motion under Rule
12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are
presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must
be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). Because discovery has not yet begun, the
Court concludes that summary judgment is premature. The Court
will exclude the submitted evidence and will consider the
motion under Rule 12(b)(6).
42 U.S.C. § 1983
each of Parada's claims against Oman, the Court must
decide whether Parada states a claim under § 1983 claim
and whether Oman is entitled to qualified immunity for claims
brought against him in his individual capacity. As to the
claims against Coon Rapids, the Court must decide whether
Parada can maintain each of her § 1983 claims against
the municipality pursuant to Monell v. Department of
Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or
person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured
in an action at law, suit in equity, or proper proceeding for
42 U.S.C. § 1983.