Opinion
Civ. No. 01-200(MJD/JGL)
July 16, 2001
Plaintiff is pro se.
Susan L. Walgrave, Assistant Minneapolis City Attorney for and on behalf of Defendants City of Minneapolis, City Council, City of Minneapolis Civil Rights Department and the Minneapolis Community Development Association.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she observed security guards at the City Center in downtown Minneapolis, beat a black man. Plaintiff further alleges that she approached the beating victim and asked if he was all right. In response to her actions in checking on the victim's status, Plaintiff alleges that the same security guards then beat her. She alleges that as a result of the beating, her arm was broken and she suffered other permanent physical and emotional injuries. She further alleges that she has observed City Center security guards harass and beat other black people.
Before the Court is the motion of Defendants City of Minneapolis Civil Rights Department, the City Council and the Minneapolis Community Development Association ("MCDA") to dismiss.
Defendants Minneapolis Civil Rights Department and the Minneapolis City Council argue that they should be dismissed from this lawsuit as a named party, as neither is a suable entity. Rule 17(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the capacity to be sued must be determined by the law of the state in which the district court is held. Minnesota law provides that before an entity established by Home Rule Charter can be sued, the Charter must provide that such entity has the right to sue and be sued. State ex Re. Finlayson v. Gorman, 117 Minn. 323, 136 N.W. 402 (1912). Minneapolis is a home rule charter city, whose charter provides that the City may sue or be sued. Minneapolis, Mn., Charter, Ch. 1, § 2. However, the Civil Rights Department and the City Council are only operational departments that are not separate legal entities that may sue or be sued. Ryan v. Civil Service Commission, 278 Minn. 296, 298, 154 N.W.2d 192, 194 (1967) (Civil Service Commission not a suable entity. See also, Jacobs v. City of Minneapolis, 1987 WL 14716 (D.Minn. 1987); Minneapolis, Mn. Charter, Ch. 4; Minneapolis, Mn. Code § 141.80. Dismissal against those entities is therefore appropriate.
Defendants further argue that dismissal is appropriate pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to the MCDA, the Civil Rights Department and the City Council as Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts that give rise to a cause of action against them. The Court agrees.
When addressing a motion to dismiss, the Court takes all facts alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint as true. Westcott v. Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990). Further, the Court must construe the allegations in the Complaint and reasonable inferences arising from the Complaint favorably to Plaintiff. Morton v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1986). A motion to dismiss will be granted only if "it appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief." Id.; see Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). The Court applies those standards in the following discussion.
In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that her injuries resulted from her alleged beating by City Center employees. Plaintiff makes no mention of the Minneapolis City Council, Civil Service Department or the MCDA's alleged role in the alleged beating, nor can the Court discern from the facts alleged a possible cause of action against these Defendants. Because the Court finds that Plaintiff can prove no facts that would support a cause of action against the Minneapolis City Council, the Civil Rights Department or the MCDA, dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is also appropriate.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants Minneapolis Civil Rights Department, Minneapolis City Council and the Minneapolis Community Development Agency's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.