United States District Court, D. Minnesota
M. Baudry, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Amanda R.
Cefalu and Nathan T. Boone, Kutak Rock LLP, Ian Bratlie, and
Teresa J. Nelson, ACLU of Minnesota, (for Plaintiff);
T. Jackola and Robert I. Yount, Assistant County Attorneys,
Anoka County Attorneys (for Defendants Anoka County and Anoka
County Sheriff James Stuart);
Alexander James Thillman and Ryan M. Zipf, (for Defendants
Coon Rapids Police Officer Nikolas Oman and City of Coon
N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Myriam
Parada's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Modify
the Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 59). A hearing was
held on July 25, 2019. (ECF No. 73.) Alain M. Baudry and Ian
Bratlie appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Andrew T. Jackola
appeared on behalf of Defendants Anoka County
(“County”) and Anoka County Sheriff James Stuart
(“Sheriff Stuart”) (collectively, “County
Defendants”). Ryan Zipf appeared on behalf of
Defendants Coon Rapids Police Officer Nikolas Oman
(“Officer Oman”) and City of Coon Rapids
(“City”) (collectively, “City
is a citizen of Mexico and lives in Ramsey, Minnesota.
(Proposed Second Am. Compl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff entered the
United States legally as a child. (Id.) On July 25,
2017, Plaintiff was rear-ended by a Caucasian driver while
driving some family members home from a birthday party.
(Id. ¶¶ 23, 26.) Plaintiff called her
parents, who came to the scene. (Id. ¶ 27.) The
other driver called the police, and Officer Oman responded.
(Id. ¶ 28.) Officer Oman permitted the other
driver, who “had 12 convictions for traffic violations
since 2012 including DWI, speeding and obstructing the legal
process, ” to leave without a citation. (Id.
¶¶ 30, 31.)
Oman asked Plaintiff for her driver's license.
(Id. ¶ 33.) Plaintiff “did not have a
Minnesota driver's license, ” and instead
“gave him her proof of insurance and a Mexican Consular
card, commonly referred to as a Matricula Consular
card.” (Id. ¶ 34.) “The Matricula
Consular card is an official identification card issued by
the Mexican consulate.” (Id.) Plaintiff's
“Matricula Consular card listed her full name, date of
birth and address in the United States”; included
“a recent photo of her”; and contained
“security features to ensure its authenticity.”
(Id. ¶ 35.) Plaintiff confirmed that all of the
information on her Matricula Consular card was accurate.
(Id. ¶ 36.)
step-father also confirmed the information was accurate and
that he was the registered owner of the car. (Id.
¶ 37.) Plaintiff's step-father gave Officer Oman
“a copy of his Minnesota driver's license.”
(Id.) “The address on Plaintiff's
Matricula Consular card was the same address as
Plaintiff's step-father's Minnesota driver's
license.” (Id. ¶ 38.) “[T]he VIN
number in the Department of Motor Vehicles database of a
[car] registered . . . . [to Plaintiff's step-father]
matched the VIN number on the proof of insurance card in the
glove compartment of the car [Plaintiff] was driving.”
(Id.) Officer Oman “ran the name of
Plaintiff's step-father through his database.”
(Id. ¶ 39.)
Oman “then spoke with Anoka [C]ounty staff on his
personal phone inside his car for several minutes.”
(Id. ¶ 40.) When Officer Oman returned,
“he told [Plaintiff] that his supervisor told him to
bring her in to get her prints, ” and “‘I
need to make sure who you are.'” (Id.
¶¶ 41-42.) Plaintiff was arrested and taken to the
Anoka County Jail. (Id. ¶ 44.) In a report,
Officer Oman “wrote . . . that he ‘transported
[Plaintiff] to jail since I was also unable to positively
identify her.'” (Id. ¶ 45.)
Oman brought Plaintiff to the Anoka County Jail around 7:20
p.m. (Id. ¶ 50.) At the Anoka County Jail,
Officer Oman completed an “Authority to Detain”
form, listing Plaintiff's name, address, and date of
birth as provided at the scene. (Id. ¶ 51.)
There was no indication that Officer Oman did not know who
Plaintiff was. (Id.) The “Authority to
Detain” form contains “a section entitled
‘Reason for Detention for Misdemeanors, '”
and has boxes to check to indicate that the person is not
eligible for immediate release. (Id. ¶ 52.)
Officer Oman did not check any of these boxes “and did
not make any notations which would suggest that [Plaintiff]
was not eligible for immediate release.” (Id.)
Records indicate that Plaintiff “was placed into
custody and handed over to the Jail only because of a
citation for driving without a [Minnesota] driver's
license.” (Id. ¶ 51.)
Anoka County Jail, Plaintiff was handcuffed, patted down,
photographed, and placed in a cell. (Id.
¶¶ 53, 55, 56.) Records indicate that Plaintiff was
cleared and free to leave the same day. (Id. ¶
59; see Id. ¶ 62.) In an e-mail to
Plaintiff's counsel, Lieutenant Sheila Larson with the
Anoka County Sheriff's Office explained that
“‘[Plaintiff] was arrested for a Misdemeanor
tag/ticket charge, which means she would then be processed
for release and given a copy of the tag. There are a few
targeted misdemeanors that would require us to hold her until
seen by a judge, she was not brought in for one of those
types of Misdemeanors.'” (Id. ¶ 59.)
was not, however, released on July 25. (See Id.
¶ 64.) At approximately 11:00 p.m., Plaintiff was
brought to an unidentified County staff member, the unknown
County Defendant, “who questioned her for a few minutes
and then brought her back to her cell.” (Id.
¶ 67.) About half an hour later, Plaintiff was again
brought to see the unknown County Defendant, who
“handed [her] a phone and instructed [her] to talk to
the person on the other end.” (Id.
¶¶ 68, 69.)
other end of the line were agents with United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).
(Id. ¶ 70.) ICE asked Plaintiff if she was a
United States citizen and how she arrived in the United
States. (Id.) Plaintiff asked the unknown County
Defendant if she needed a lawyer, and was told to ask ICE.
(Id. ¶¶ 71, 72.) ICE told Plaintiff
“that ‘it goes faster without a
lawyer.'” (Id. ¶ 73.) Plaintiff then
told ICE “how she entered the United States.”
(Id. ¶ 74.) After Plaintiff was done speaking
with ICE, the unknown County Defendant took her back to her
cell. (Id. ¶ 75.) Plaintiff was fingerprinted
approximately an hour later. (Id.)
early morning hours of July 26, ICE sent an I-200 Warrant for
Arrest of an Alien (“ICE Warrant”) and I-247 ICE
Detainer (“ICE Detainer”) to the Anoka County
Jail. (Id. ¶¶ 76, 77, 93.) The ICE Warrant
was unsigned and not served on Plaintiff. (Id.
¶¶ 76, 94, 104.) The ICE Detainer was stamped
“Draft Not Complete” on each page and also not
served on Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 77, 104.)
Around 2:00 a.m., Plaintiff was brought out of her cell,
given a citation for not having a Minnesota driver's
license, and handed over to two ICE agents. (Id.
¶¶ 81, 82.) Plaintiff was handcuffed, shackled, and
taken to the Sherburne County Jail. (Id. ¶ 84.)
About an hour later, Plaintiff's family was informed that
she was in ICE custody. (Id. ¶ 85.) Plaintiff
is currently in removal proceedings. (Id. ¶
others, Plaintiff brings claims against Defendants pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of her constitutional
rights and false imprisonment under Minnesota common law.
MOTION TO AMEND
requests leave to amend the Amended Complaint to seek
punitive damages in connection with her federal § 1983
claims and common-law false-imprisonment claim. Plaintiff
also seeks leave to add a § 1983 claim for violation of
her equal-protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment
against the County Defendants.
the exception of amendments as a matter of course, the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a party to
“amend its pleadings only with the opposing party's
written consent or the court's leave.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(2). The Rules further provide that leave should be
freely given “when justice so requires.”
Id. There is, however, “no absolute right to
amend” and a finding of undue delay, bad faith,
dilatory motive, undue prejudice to the non-moving party, or
futility may be grounds to deny a motion to amend. Doe v.
Cassel, 403 F.3d 986, 990-91 (8th Cir. 2005).
“Fundamentally, ‘the grant or denial of an
opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District
Court.'” Ash v. Anderson Merchandisers,
LLC, 799 F.3d 957, 963 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
Equal-Protection Claim Against the County Defendants
Court begins with Plaintiff's proposed § 1983 claim
for violation of her equal-protection rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment against the County Defendants.
the exception of motions to seek punitive damages, the
deadline for motions to amend the pleadings was December 15,
2018. (ECF No. 56 at 3.) As Plaintiff's motion was filed
after that deadline, Plaintiff must show good cause for
modification of the deadline. Sherman v. Winco Fireworks,
Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 716-17 (8th Cir. 2008). “The
primary measure of good cause is the movant's diligence
in attempting to meet the scheduling order's
requirements.” Harris v. FedEx Nat'l LTL,
Inc., 760 F.3d 780, 786 (8th Cir. 2014) (quotation
omitted); see also Sherman, 532 F.3d at 716-17.
“The ‘good cause' standard is an exacting
one, for it demands a demonstration that the existing
schedule cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of
the party seeking the extension.” Khoday v.
Symantec Corp., No. 11-cv-180 (JRT/TNL), 2013 WL
12141434, at *2 (D. Minn. May 15, 2013) (quotation omitted).
asserts that she discovered the basis for her proposed
equal-protection claim against the County Defendants during a
30(b)(6) deposition of the County, which took place on June
18, 2019. The County appeared through Commander David
Pacholl.During the deposition, Commander Pacholl
testified that the Anoka County Jail notifies ICE as part of
its booking procedure when an individual identifies him or
herself as having been born outside of the United States,
states that he or she is not a United States citizen or is a
foreign national, or provides “data” from another
country. (Dep. of David Pacholl 160:12-169:1, Ex. 4 to Aff.
of Amanda Cefalu, ECF No. 60-4.) Commander Pacholl testified
that there is an automated, law-enforcement electronic
communication program through which ICE is notified, and the
Anoka County Jail may also follow up with ICE via telephone
if a response is not received in connection with the
automated notification. (Pacholl Dep. 163:1-165:13.) It is
this automatic notification to ICE that forms the basis of
Plaintiff's proposed equal-protection claim. See
infra Section III.B.2.b.
County Defendants respond that parties have been engaged in
discovery for nearly a year, and Plaintiff could have taken
this deposition sooner. They additionally respond that, with
little time left for fact discovery, it “is too
late” for Plaintiff “to inject a new theory of
liability” into this case. (County Opp'n at 14, ECF
No. 68.) At the hearing, the Court inquired as to whether the
existing pretrial schedule would need to be amended should
Plaintiff be permitted to add this claim. Plaintiff and the
County Defendants each confirmed that no adjustments would be
Court finds that Plaintiff has been diligent in attempting to
meet the requirements of the scheduling order. Plaintiff
reasonably pursued information regarding the County
Defendants' policies and communications with ICE through
other discovery methods during the fact discovery period, and
learned of the automatic notification process during a
30(b)(6) deposition taken more than two months before the
close of fact discovery. Once she became aware of the
automatic notification process, Plaintiff promptly moved to
amend. Further, having found that Plaintiff was diligent in
meeting the requirements of the scheduling order, it is also
relevant the County Defendants have not articulated any
specific prejudice resulting from the timing of the
amendment. As stated above, Plaintiff and the ...