This lawsuit was filed June 2, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The case arose out of the spring and summer protests in 2020 in response to the police killing of George Floyd. The case alleges that Minneapolis police targeted journalists covering the protests in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The original complaint had one class representative and sought class certification to cover all journalists covering the protests more generally. Defendants were various city and state officials and the City of Minneapolis. The complaint alleged that police actions against plaintiffs constituted retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, unlawful seizure and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that the arrests were violations of procedural Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order (TRO), a preliminary injunction, a permanent injunction, class certification, declaratory relief, money damages with interest, and attorney's fees and costs of the suit. They also submitted separate motions for class certification and an expedited motion for a temporary restraining order. The next day the case was assigned to Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright and referred to Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz.
On June 5, 2020, defendants opposed plaintiff's motions for class certification and the TRO. Three days later plaintiffs amended their complaint to add an individual plaintiff and to add the Communications Workers of America as a plaintiff.
The next day, Judge Wright issued an order denying class certification and denying the TRO. Regarding class certification she said that plaintiffs would need to wait for more discovery to happen. On the TRO she said that there was no evidence, nor did plaintiffs allege, that the behavior plaintiffs sought to enjoin was persistent beyond May 31, 2020. To grant the TRO, the behavior plaintiffs sought to enjoin must have been "imminent." 2020 WL 3056705.
On June 22, 2020, one defendant asked for more time to respond to the complaint. One of those defendants was given until August 3 to respond.
Before defendants could respond, however, plaintiffs then asked to file a second amended complaint. They filed the second amended complaint on July 30. The new complaint added charges of civil conspiracy to deprive rights, failure to intervene in defense of rights, violations of Due Process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and another count of violating the First Amendment, this time via a theory on retaliation.
The case is ongoing as of August 4, 2020.
Jack Hibbard - 06/23/2020
Jack Hibbard - 08/04/2020
compress summary
