Opinion
A23-0677
01-02-2024
Andrew Joseph Haman, Appellant, v. Beltrami County, et al., Respondents, City of Bemidji, Defendant.
Beltrami County District Court File No. 04-CV-20-2702
Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Klaphake, Judge. [*]
ORDER OPINION
Roger Klaphake Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Pro se appellant Andrew Joseph Haman challenges the summary-judgment dismissal of his claims against respondents Beltrami County, Beltrami County Sheriff's Office, and six Beltrami County police officers (collectively respondents) for conversion and negligence.
2. The following facts are not in dispute. In 2014, law enforcement officers seized certain personal property from Haman's residence pursuant to a search warrant. Following the search, Haman was charged with fifth-degree possession of marijuana and psilocybin mushrooms in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.025, subd. 2(a)(1) (2014). Haman pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, fifth-degree possession of marijuana in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.025, subd. 2(a)(1). In 2015, Haman's attorney at the time requested the return of his property. The prosecuting attorney directed the Beltrami County Sherriff's Office that Haman's property be returned except for property which "will be destroyed pursuant to statute." The sheriff's office returned Haman's property and Haman signed two property-release forms indicating that he had received the listed property.
See Minn. Stat. § 609.5316, subds. 1, 2 (2022) ("contraband . . . must be summarily forfeited and . . . destroyed" including property "which controlled substances . . . may be derived that have been planted or cultivated in violation of chapter 152").
3. Haman commenced this lawsuit against respondents. The district court held a scheduling hearing and, on July 8, 2021, issued its scheduling order requiring the parties to complete discovery by January 1, 2022. In September 2021, respondents served requests for ad missions on Haman. The requests for admissions first cited language from Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 36, notifying Haman of the consequences if he failed to respond. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 36.01 (stating that each mat t er of w hich an ad mission is request ed is admitted unless within 30 days after service of the request the recipient party responds by written answer or objection). Haman did not respond to respondents' requests within 30 days.
4. On March 17, 2022, Haman filed an amended complaint asserting claims of conversion and negligence. Haman's amended complaint alleged that respondents unlawfully retained-and subsequently destroyed-350 pounds of "1st generation spawn," "10 gallons of liquid culture," "[a]t least 112 bags of various labeled dried mushroom specimens," 100 pounds of honey mushrooms, and various "spore prints." Haman's complaint also alleged that respondents "negligently stored" his "laminar flow hood" outside-damaging it-and negligently stored "petri dishes containing wild native [Minnesota] saprophytic fungi of various species . . . in airtight plastic resulting in the death of all 85 from suffocation." Finally, Haman alleged that respondents damaged a safe during the execution of the search warrant.
Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 15.01 provides that "[a] party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. . . . Otherwise, a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party." Respondents served their answer to the original complaint on May 10, 2021. The record does not establish that Haman received leave of court or respondents' consent to amend his complaint. However, because the district court's order reflects that it considered the March 17, 2022, amended complaint when making its summary-judgment determination, and because the parties do not assert error on this basis, we also consider the amended complaint to be the relevant complaint in our de novo review.
5. On September 6, 2022, respondents filed a motion for summary judgment. Respondents submitted, in support of their summary-judgment motion, evidence that Haman's property was inventoried, the petri dishes were placed into evidence bags then stored in the designated evidence storage room, and the flow hood, which was too large to fit in the storage room, was stored in a locked and enclosed trailer in the Beltrami County impound lot. Respondents also submitted evidence that all of Haman's property in their custody was returned to Haman in 2015, except for "drugs and paraphernalia," which were destroyed.
6. On October 5, 2022, the district court held a hearing on respondents' summary-judgment motion. Haman had not responded to respondents' motion at the time of the hearing. The day after the hearing, the district court issued an order stating that Haman "has two weeks to respond to the motion for summary judgment." Haman again failed to respond. On March 8, 2023, the district court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment. Haman appeals.
We note that Haman failed to order a transcript of the summary-judgment hearing or any other hearing and, consequently, we do not have a record of any oral requests made to the district court. It is the appellant's duty to order a transcript if needed on appeal. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.02. "When an appellant acts as attorney pro se, appellate courts are disposed to disregard defects in the brief, but that does not relieve appellants of the necessity of providing an adequate record and preserving it in a way that will permit review." Thorp Loan and Thrift Co. v. Morse, 451 N.W.2d 361, 363 (Minn.App. 1990), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 13, 1990); see also Francis v. State, 781 N.W.2d 892, 896 (Minn. 2010) (stating that a party that appears pro se “is held to the standard of an attorney in presenting his appeal”).
7. "A defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff's claim." Lubbers v. Anderson, 539 N.W.2d 398, 401 (Minn. 1995). We review a district court's application of the law and its determination that there are no genuine issues of material fact de novo. STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., 644 N.W.2d 72, 77 (Minn. 2002). The evidence is examined in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted. Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993). In opposing summary judgment, however, "general assertions" are not enough to create a genuine issue of material fact. Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 533 N.W.2d 845, 848 (Minn. 1995). Instead, the nonmoving party must present sufficient evidence "to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions" and create more than "a metaphysical doubt as to the factual issue." DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 71 (Minn. 1997). In addition, "Mere speculation, without some concrete evidence, is not enough to avoid summary judgment." Bob Useldinger & Sons, Inc. v. Hangsleben, 505 N.W.2d 323, 328 (Minn. 1993).
8. Haman does not dispute that respondent officers acted with lawful justification when they initially seized his property pursuant to a search warrant. A nd Haman has presented no evidence that respondents acted without lawful justification with respect to his property at any time thereafter. Nor has Haman presented any evidence that respondents wrongfully refused to return his property upon demand, that the property he alleges respondents destroyed was ever in respondents' custody, or that he was lawfully entitled to the return of the property at issue.
9. Haman did not present any evidence to support his assertion that respondents failed to exercise reasonable care in support of his negligence claim, or to rebut the evidence submitted by respondents on the conversion claim. "In order to successfully oppose summary judgment, appellant must extract specific, admissible facts from the voluminous record and particularize them for the [district court]." Kletschka v. Abbott-Northwestern Hosp., Inc., 417 N.W.2d 752, 754 (Minn.App. 1988) (emphasis omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 1988).
10. Haman did not respond to respondents' motion for summary judgment nor did Haman, at any time, present evidence to refute the facts asserted by respondents. When a party submits evidence in support of summary judgment, the opposing party may not simply rely on statements in the complaint. Borom v. City of St. Paul, 184 N.W.2d 595, 597 (Minn. 1971); see also Ahlm v. Rooney, 143 N.W.2d 65, 68 (Minn. 1966) (stating that if "a summary judgment motion is supported by affidavits, depositions, etc., the nonmoving party cannot rely on assertions in his pleadings to create fact issues"). The party opposing summary judgment must point to specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Nicollet Restoration, 533 N.W.2d at 848. "Speculation, general assertions, and promises to produce evidence at trial are not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial." Id.; see also Lubbers, 539 N.W.2d at 401 ("A [party] is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law when the record reflects a complete lack of proof on an essential element of the plaintiff's claim.").
11. After a careful review of the record, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Haman, we conclude there that are no genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment and respondents are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.01.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's judgment is affirmed .
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.