Keefe v. City of Minneapolis, No. 13-3069 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Casen 2007, Minneapolis Police Department Lieutenant Keefe was made commander of the Violent Offenders Task Force, involving the FBI, ATF, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The task force conducted a wiretap investigation of a gang. Keefe learned that gang members had threatened to kill police officers. Keefe told a local police chief that the U.S. Attorney’s Office would brief the chief’s department about an ongoing investigation. ATF officials believed that this disclosure was inappropriate because the investigation involved a wiretap and notified Keefe that he was “prohibited from entering ATF office space.” In an unrelated investigation, a suspected gang leader identified six MPD officers as corrupt, triggering a corruption investigation. Keefe doubted the claims and confronted the informant. The FBI told his chief that Keefe was harming the investigation. Keefe was removed from the investigation and, after others voice concerns, was removed from the task force only months after his appointment. Keefe lodged a misconduct complaint (later designated unfounded) against an MPD Sergeant who was involved in his reassignment and made an anonymous telephone call to the chief’s wife. Keefe was disciplined for false allegations and demoted. The Eighth Circuit affirmed rejection of Keefe’s 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Murphy and Smith, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Assuming without deciding that plaintiff's allegations of misconduct show a violation of a fundamental right, his Section 1983 claim nonetheless fails because the alleged conduct on which plaintiff relies was not so outrageous and egregious that it may be said to shock the contemporary conscience; defendant police chief's statements regarding plaintiff's conduct as an officer likewise failed to shock the conscience and did not create a Section 1983 cause of action; with respect to plaintiff's claim that the defendants violated Section 1986 by failing to prevent a conspiracy to violate his civil rights, defendants were entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a conspiracy existed that was motivated by a class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus; plaintiff's Section 1981 retaliation claim failed because he did not establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants' proffered reasons for employment actions were merely pretextual; without a viable Section 1981 or 1983 claim, plaintiff's Monell municipal liability claim must fail.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.