Filed Date: Jan. 28, 2022
Closed Date: Nov. 3, 2023
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a putative class action about excessive police force used to disperse protestors of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). On November 20, 2016, the plaintiffs– Native Americans and other concerned citizens who referred to themselves as "water protectors"--gathered to pray and protest the DAPL at Backwater Bridge in North Dakota. They were met by local police forces who were armed with specialty impact munitions, teargas, and water cannons. Without warning, the police began to use force to disperse the crowd, injuring over 200 demonstrators in the process. Police also arrested approximately 100 people who were peacefully protesting or were engaged in prayer ceremonies.
The plaintiffs filed their complaint in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota on November 28, 2016. The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of similarly situated protestors, but class certification was never granted. The case was initially assigned to Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland. The plaintiffs brought this action against Morton County, North Dakota and their Sheriff's Department; Stutsman County, North Dakota and their Sheriff's Department; and the City of Mandan, North Dakota. They also included 100 unnamed individual law enforcement officers as defendants.
The plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. §1981 and §1983. The plaintiffs asserted violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments in the form of retaliation for constitutionally protected activities, unreasonable use of force, unconstitutional policing policies by the defendant agencies, and unequal protection under the law. They also included state law claims for assault and battery as well as negligence by the defendants against all members of the class.The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief declaring the defendants’ actions unlawful and enjoining them from using the same methods of crowd dispersal in the future. The case was assigned to Judge Daniel L. Hovland.
The same day the lawsuit began, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief. The plaintiffs requested an order prohibiting the defendants from using excessive force in responding to the pipeline protests and prohibiting the use of specialty impact munitions, explosive grenades, chemical agents, sound cannons, directed energy devices, and water cannons or hoses, as a means of crowd dispersal. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order on December 1, 2016, and denied their motion for a preliminary injunction approximately three months later. Judge Hovland denied both motions because the plaintiffs failed to certify in writing that they had made efforts to notify the defendants as required by FRCP 65(B)(1)(b).
On February 22, 2017, the court stayed proceedings as the plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit regarding the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. That stay was lifted on January 10, 2018, after the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial in a cursory per curiam opinion. 701 Fed.Appx. 538. The court found that there was not an abuse of discretion by Judge Hovland and agreed with his finding.
On February 27, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint containing information about government actions relating to the DAPL subsequent to their initial filing. The plaintiffs alleged that approximately three months after the first complaint, the defendants again engaged with protestors and injured them with water cannons and specialty impact munitions. The first amended complaint also included the addition of state law claims against the defendants for assault and battery and negligence.
The defendants initially filed a motion to dismiss on April 6, 2018. Two years later, this case was reassigned to Judge Daniel Traynor, who converted the defendant’s motion to one for summary judgment on September 10, 2020 in order to allow time for discovery. The defendants then filed an interlocutory appeal to the Eighth Circuit, arguing that the district court erred by refusing to rule on whether the officials were protected by qualified immunity. That appeal was dismissed by the Eighth Circuit for lack of jurisdiction. 2020 WL 9211289.
On December 29, 2021, Judge Traynor granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Regarding the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim, the court found that no seizure occurred because the plaintiffs were free to leave and were not being herded in any particular direction. In the alternative, the court also held that the officers would have been protected by qualified immunity. The court also found the plaintiffs’ excessive force and state law claims to be without merit, as the officers’ actions were objectively reasonable; again the court concluded in the alternative that the officers would have been shielded by qualified immunity. Finally, because the court found that the officers did not act because of any of the plaintiffs’ political or religious beliefs, it concluded that the plaintiffs’ remaining Equal Protection Clause and First Amendment claims were without merit. 577 F.Supp.3d 1007.
On January 28, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit. On July 11, 2022, the case was screened and selected for oral argument. As of November 2022, the case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Claire Butler (11/6/2022)
Taylor Hopkins (4/18/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67358272/parties/vanessa-dundon-v-kyle-kirchmeier/
1-100, Does (North Dakota)
Alamuddin, Sari M. (North Dakota)
Alt, Constance M (North Dakota)
Bakke, Grant (North Dakota)
Bakke, Randall J. (North Dakota)
Fennerty, James R. (North Dakota)
Ficzko, Andrew C. (North Dakota)
Hoft, Janine L. (North Dakota)
Lederman, Rachel (North Dakota)
Philipps, David J. (North Dakota)
Philipps, Mary Elizabeth (North Dakota)
Regan, Lauren C. (North Dakota)
Robertson, Angie K. (North Dakota)
Segovia, Natali (North Dakota)
Stephan, Ryan F (North Dakota)
Treanor, Noah Michael (North Dakota)
Alamuddin, Sari M. (North Dakota)
Alt, Constance M (North Dakota)
Bakke, Randall J. (North Dakota)
Boran, Christopher J. (North Dakota)
Fishman, Marshall Howard (North Dakota)
Fray-Witzer, Evan Marc (North Dakota)
Glover, R. Mark (North Dakota)
Gould, Gabrielle Lisa (North Dakota)
Grinolds, Shawn A. (North Dakota)
Gurvits, Valentin David (North Dakota)
Hancock, Lawrence Bradley (North Dakota)
Hurka, Thomas F. (North Dakota)
Israel, Sam Peter (North Dakota)
Jackson, Charles C. (North Dakota)
Manbeck, Alexandra T. (North Dakota)
Rinden, Jennifer (North Dakota)
Roberts, Kristine L. (North Dakota)
Sady, Michael P. (North Dakota)
Simpson, W. Scott (North Dakota)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67358272/vanessa-dundon-v-kyle-kirchmeier/
Last updated April 16, 2024, 11:29 a.m.
State / Territory: North Dakota
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 28, 2022
Closing Date: Nov. 3, 2023
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiffs are a group of nine individuals seeking to represent a class of "water protectors" injured by law enforcement while protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Mooted before ruling
Defendants
Stutsman County (Stutsman), County
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Unreasonable search and seizure
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General:
Policing:
Discrimination-basis:
Race: