Repossession: Just Because You Have A Legal Right To Recover Assets Doesn’t Mean It Is Going To Be Easy

Alexander v. Hedback, 718 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 2013) -

After extended litigation regarding the rights of two Chapter 7 debtors, the bankruptcy court ordered that two bankruptcy trustees were entitled to possession of the debtors' home and authorized the U.S. Marshals to evict anyone at the property. After the debtors' son was evicted, he sued the bankruptcy trustees, the United States Marshal, unnamed deputy marshals, the City of St. Paul and two St. Paul police officers. The complaint included a claim under 42 USC §1983 alleging a violation of the son's constitutional rights, as well as several equitable and tort claims. The federal district court dismissed the §1983 and equitable claims with prejudice, and the remaining claims without prejudice. The son (Alexander) appealed the dismissal of the §1983 and tort claims to the 8th Circuit.

The opinion opens with the comment that the eviction order came after more than 13 years of litigation. It also indicates that the eviction was carried out by six deputy marshals accompanied by approximately six St. Paul police officers. Although the opinion does not contain many other details, this obviously was a toxic situation.

With respect to the federal defendants, the 8th Circuit concluded that dismissal of the §1983 claim was proper because there was no indication that the federal defendants were operating under "color of state law." Alexander then argued that the complaint should have been construed as alleging a claim under Bivens instead. (Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 Sup. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971).) However, the court agreed that dismissal of the Bivens claim was correct since Alexander never amended his complaint to add any Bivens claims.

With respect to the state defendants, the court concluded that the two police officers were sued only in their official capacity, which meant that it was "merely a suit against the public employer," and "[a] municipality can be liable under §1983 only if a municipal policy or custom caused a claimant to be deprived of a federal right."

Thus the threshold question was whether there was a causal link between a city policy or custom and a constitutional deprivation. Alexander tried arguing that (1) the city did not properly train its officers in eviction procedures, because (2) if it had, they would have reviewed and investigated the validity of the bankruptcy court's order. Alexander postulated that...