UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Case No: Defendants, Steven Lecy and the City of Minneapolis, through their

Transcription

1 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Michael A. Ofor, Case No: Plaintiff, v. Steven Lecy, and City of Minneapolis, NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT Defendants. Defendants, Steven Lecy and the City of Minneapolis, through their attorney, Tracey N. Fussy, Assistant Minneapolis City Attorney, 350 South Fifth Street, Suite 210, Minneapolis, MN 55415, hereby give notice to the State Court and Plaintiff, Michael A. Ofor, as follows: 1. Steven Lecy and the City of Minneapolis are Defendants in a civil action in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Minnesota entitled Michael A. Ofor v. Steven Lecy and City of Minneapolis, and a trial has not yet been had thereon. 2. A copy of the Summons is attached as Exhibit A. A copy of the Complaint is attached as Exhibit B. A copy of the Answer of Defendants Steven Lecy and the City of Minneapolis is attached as Exhibit C. 3. This Notice of Removal to Federal Court is filed pursuant to Title 28,

2 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 2 of 4 United States Code, 1441(a) and (b), said action in the State Court commenced against Defendants being a civil action alleging that Defendants violated the civil rights of the Plaintiff resulting in injury. 4. The Complaint alleges a violation of Plaintiff s rights protected under 42 U.S.C These are claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1343, as they arise under the laws of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1331, and this claim is therefore removable under 28 U.S.C The Complaint also alleges several State law claims. 5. Defendants, Steven Lecy and the City of Minneapolis, file herewith a copy of all process, pleadings and orders served upon them in this action, have sent written notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal to Federal Court to Plaintiff, and will promptly file a copy of this Notice with the Clerk of the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, and attach the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11 affidavit. 7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(2)(A), all defendants who have been properly joined and served consent to the removal of this action. WHEREFORE, notice is hereby given this action is removed from the State Court to this Court for trial or such other determination as this Court may make 2

3 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 3 of 4 regarding the action and in accordance with its jurisdictional limits under 28 U.S.C Dated: April 15, 2013 SUSAN L. SEGAL City Attorney By s/ Tracey N. Fussy TRACEY N. FUSSY Assistant City Attorney Attorney Reg. No Attorneys for Defendants City Hall, Room South 5th Street Minneapolis, MN (612)

4 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 4 of 4 AFFIDAVIT OF TRACEY N. FUSSY STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Tracey N. Fussy, being first duly sworn, states and alleges as follows: Affiant is an attorney with the Office of the City Attorney for the City of Minneapolis and represents Defendants Steven Lecy and the City of Minneapolis, she has read the foregoing Notice of Removal to Federal Court and knows the contents thereof; the same is true of her own knowledge, except as to any matters stated therein on information and belief, and as to those matters, she believes them to be true. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of, Notary Public My Commission expires: 4

5 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 1 of 2 Notice of Removal Exhibit A

6 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-1 Filed 04/15/13 Page 2 of 2 Notice of Removal Exhibit A

7 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-2 Filed 04/15/13 Page 1 of 9 Notice of Removal Exhibit B

8 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-2 Filed 04/15/13 Page 2 of 9 Notice of Removal Exhibit B

9 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-2 Filed 04/15/13 Page 3 of 9 Notice of Removal Exhibit B

10 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-2 Filed 04/15/13 Page 4 of 9 Notice of Removal Exhibit B

11 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-2 Filed 04/15/13 Page 5 of 9 Notice of Removal Exhibit B

12 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-2 Filed 04/15/13 Page 6 of 9 Notice of Removal Exhibit B

13 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-2 Filed 04/15/13 Page 7 of 9 Notice of Removal Exhibit B

14 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-2 Filed 04/15/13 Page 8 of 9 Notice of Removal Exhibit B

15 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-2 Filed 04/15/13 Page 9 of 9 Notice of Removal Exhibit B

16 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-3 Filed 04/15/13 Page 1 of 9 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Michael A. Ofor, Plaintiff, v. Steven Lecy, and City of Minneapolis, DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: Civil Rights Court File No.: ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS STEVEN LECY AND CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS Defendants. Defendants, Steven Lecy and the City of Minneapolis, for their Answer to the Complaint of Plaintiff, state and allege as follows: Unless admitted, denied, or otherwise pled below, Defendants deny each and every allegation, matter and thing contained in Plaintiff s Complaint. Defendants: THE PARTIES 1. Are without sufficient knowledge or information to form an opinion as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and they are therefore denied. 2. Admit that Defendant Steven Lecy is an adult male who at all times relevant to the allegations set forth in this Complaint was acting under the color of state law in his capacity as a law enforcement officer employed by the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota; admit that Plaintiff seeks to sue Lecy in his individual capacity; deny Plaintiff s claims have any merit. Notice of Removal Exhibit C

17 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-3 Filed 04/15/13 Page 2 of 9 3. Admit that Defendant City of Minneapolis ( Minneapolis ) is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota; admit Minneapolis employed Lecy as a police officer at all times relevant to this action; admit that Plaintiff seeks to sue Minneapolis directly and also on the theories of respondeat superior or vicarious liability and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes for the conduct of Lecy; admit that Minneapolis is a political subdivision charged with training and supervising law enforcement officers; admit Minneapolis has established and implemented (or delegated the responsibility for establishing and implementing) policies, practices, procedures, and customs used by law enforcement officers employed by Minneapolis regarding discrimination and the use of force; deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. JURISDICTION 4. Admit that Plaintiff makes claims for monetary and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C and 1988, Minn. Stat. 363A.01 et seq. (the Minnesota Human Rights Act or MHRA), and federal and state common law; admit that this Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to Minn. Stat et seq. and Minnesota common law; admit that the events giving rise to this action occurred in Hennepin County; deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Complaint. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 5. Admit the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint. 2 Notice of Removal Exhibit C

18 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-3 Filed 04/15/13 Page 3 of 9 6. Are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, and they are therefore denied. 7. Admit the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. 8. Are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, and they are therefore denied 9. Admit the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint. 10. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 11. Admit the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint. 12. Admit the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint. 13. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint. 14. Admit the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint. 15. Is without information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, and therefore they are denied. 16. Admit at one point Lecy ordered Plaintiff to the ground. Deny the chronology of the paragraphs of the Complaint. 17. Admit Plaintiff eventually got on the ground. 18. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint. 19. Are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, and they are therefore denied. 3 Notice of Removal Exhibit C

19 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-3 Filed 04/15/13 Page 4 of Deny the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint. 21. Admit the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint. 22. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint. 23. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint. 24. Admit Defendant Lecy pulled Plaintiff to the ground one time, and that Plaintiff was in handcuffs at that time. Deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint. 25. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint. 26. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint. 27. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 28. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. 29. Admit the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint. 30. Admit the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint. 31. Are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, and they are therefore denied. 32. Are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, and they are therefore denied. 33. Are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, and they are therefore denied. 4 Notice of Removal Exhibit C

20 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-3 Filed 04/15/13 Page 5 of Are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, and they are therefore denied. 35. Are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, and they are therefore denied. 36. Are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint, and they are therefore denied. 37. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint. COUNT I DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C AND THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS EXCESSIVE FORCE 38. State that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 38 are not susceptive of responsive pleading; to the extent that they allege or imply wrongful conduct on the part of Defendants, they are denied. 39. Admit the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint. 40. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint. 41. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint. 42. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint. 43. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint. 44. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint. 5 Notice of Removal Exhibit C

21 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-3 Filed 04/15/13 Page 6 of 9 COUNT II BATTERY 45. State that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 45 are not susceptive of responsive pleading; to the extent that they allege or imply wrongful conduct on the part of Defendants, they are denied. 46. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint. 47. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint. COUNT III INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 48. State that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 48 are not susceptive of responsive pleading; to the extent that they allege or imply wrongful conduct on the part of Defendants, they are denied. 49. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint. 50. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint. 51. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint. 52. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint. COUNT IV VIOLATION OF THE MINNESOTA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 53. State that the allegations set forth in Paragraph 53 are not susceptive of responsive pleading; to the extent that they allege or imply wrongful conduct on the part of Defendants, they are denied. 54. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint. 55. Deny the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint. 6 Notice of Removal Exhibit C

22 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-3 Filed 04/15/13 Page 7 of 9 JURY DEMAND 56. Admit that Plaintiffs demand a jury trial; deny that Plaintiffs claims have any merit. DEFENSES 1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. At all times material to the Complaint, Defendant Lecy was governmental official performing discretionary functions in the scope of his official duties and acting in objective good faith, with a reasonable basis to believe that the actions taken, if any, were lawful and justified, such that he has qualified and official immunity from liability in this action. 3. The use of force, if any, was privileged under the common law and/or under Minnesota Statutes, including Minn. Stat Plaintiff s damages, if any, were caused, contributed to, or brought about by Plaintiff s unlawful and illegal acts and/or the unlawful and illegal acts of those over whom the Defendants exercise no right of control. 5. Any liability is limited by Minn. Stat Defendants deny that Plaintiff has any right to attorneys fees in this action. 7. The City of Minneapolis is immune from liability for punitive damages. 8. Plaintiff has failed to take reasonable action to avoid or mitigate the alleged detriment or damages. 7 Notice of Removal Exhibit C

23 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-3 Filed 04/15/13 Page 8 of 9 9. The City of Minneapolis is a municipality, and therefore is immune from liability for claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, which are based on the concept of respondeat superior. 10. Defendants allege that Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages. 11. Defendants actions were justified by Plaintiff s actions. 12. Defendants allege that they are immune from liability in this action under the provisions of Minn. Stat , subd Defendants allege that they are immune from liability in this action under the provisions of Minn. Stat , subd Defendants allege that the acts upon which the Complaint is made were privileged, were based upon probable cause to believe that Plaintiff had committed a criminal offense, were commanded or authorized by law, and were done in a reasonable and lawful manner under the circumstances, such that the Defendants are immune from liability in this action. 15. The Defendants allege that they have immunity in this action under the doctrine of official immunity and vicarious official immunity. 16. The Complaint does not state a cause of action for declaratory relief in that it presents only questions of fact properly determinable by a jury in a regular action. Dated: SUSAN L. SEGAL City Attorney By s/ Tracey Fussy Tracey N. Fussy 8 Notice of Removal Exhibit C

24 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-3 Filed 04/15/13 Page 9 of 9 Assistant City Attorney Attorney Reg. No Attorneys for Defendants City Hall, Room South 5th Street Minneapolis, MN (612) Notice of Removal Exhibit C

25 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-4 Filed 04/15/13 Page 1 of 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Michael A. Ofor, Plaintiff, v. Steven Lecy, and City of Minneapolis, DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: Civil Rights Court File No.: DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING REMOVAL Defendants. TO: Plaintiff above-named and his attorney, Tim M. Phillips, Law Office of Joshua R. Williams, PLLC, 3249 Hennepin Avenue S, Ste 216, Minneapolis, MN Defendants Steven Lecy and the City of Minneapolis, through their attorney, Tracey N. Fussy, Assistant Minneapolis City Attorney, 350 South Fifth Street, Suite 210, Minneapolis, MN 55415, hereby give notice of Filing the Notice of Removal of Action to United States District Court by United States mail to Plaintiff, Michael A. Ofor, through his attorney of record, Tim M. Phillips, and to the Hennepin County District Court. Dated: April 15, 2013 SUSAN L. SEGAL City Attorney By s/ Tracey N. Fussy TRACEY N. FUSSY Assistant City Attorney Attorney Reg. No Attorneys for Defendants City Hall, Room South 5th Street Minneapolis, MN (612)

26 CASE 0:13-cv RHK-TNL Document 1-5 Filed 04/15/13 Page 1 of 1