Carmack v. City of Shakopee et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
WILLIS JONATHON DAVID CARMACK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE and SHAKOPEE
POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
Case No. 25‐CV‐2086 (PJS/ECW)
ORDER
Willis Jonathon David Carmack, plaintiff pro se.
Ashley M. Ramstad, Jason M. Hiveley, and Michael Conlin‐Brandenburg,
IVERSON REUVERS, for defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the unopposed motion of defendants City of
Shakopee and Shakopee Police Department (“SPD”) for judgment on the pleadings.1
For the reasons explained below, the motion is granted.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) is assessed
under the same standards as a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See
Ashley Cnty. v. Pfizer, Inc., 552 F.3d 659, 665 (8th Cir. 2009). In reviewing a motion to
dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a court must accept as true all of the factual
1Defendants filed their motion on January 26, 2026. ECF No. 35. Under the Local
Rules of this District, Carmack’s response was due no later than February 17, 2026. D.
Minn. L.R. 7.1(c)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). Despite filing other materials, see ECF
Nos. 48–52, Carmack has not responded to defendants’ motion.
CASE 0:25-cv-02086-PJS-ECW Doc. 54 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 4

allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.
York v. Wellmark, Inc., 965 F.3d 633, 638 (8th Cir. 2020). Although the factual allegations
need not be detailed, they must be sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The complaint
must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
Carmack filed this action in May 2025. His short complaint contains the
following allegations:
Removal of the use/services of Law Enforcement
Plaintiff Freedom of speech violated 2 times
Refusal to Provide Protection for Harrassment, theft and
Fraud
* 	* 	*
1. 	Shakopee Police Department Held my civil service for
18 days. Provided no protection for Harrassment.
2. 	Retaliated by Removing Law Enforcement for a full
time dad & his son Tyler and allowed Harrassment to
continue without the Plaintiff having the
“opportunity” to use law Enforcement.
3. 	Refusing Investigation for Plaintiffs and applying
(with prejudice) after Plaintiff “paid” for service.
4. 	Removed 1st Amendment rights 2 separate times.
ECF No. 1 at 3–4.
These vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim.
Carmack seems to be alleging that defendants violated his First Amendment rights by
refusing to provide police protection and by taking other types of retaliatory actions.
-2-
CASE 0:25-cv-02086-PJS-ECW Doc. 54 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 4

But Carmack does not allege that he engaged in any First Amendment activity, much less
identify that activity. Nor does Carmack allege any facts showing a causal connection
between such (unidentified) activity and the alleged retaliatory conduct. Other than
alleging that the SPD “[h]eld [his] civil service for 18 days,” Carmack likewise fails to
allege any facts concerning the alleged retaliatory conduct. For example, he does not
describe when, how, or for what reason he requested law‐enforcement protection, nor
does he describe when, how, or by whom that request was denied. And while Carmack
seems to contend that, as a result of the alleged failure to protect him, he experienced
harassment, theft, and fraud, he does not allege any facts about any of these alleged
harms; indeed, he does not even identify who harassed him, stole from him, or
defrauded him.
The Court does not doubt Carmack’s sincerity, but the very few facts alleged in
his complaint are not sufficient to state a viable legal claim. For that reason, defendants’
motion is granted. Given that this action has been pending since May 2025, and given
that Carmack failed to respond to defendants’ motion and never sought leave to amend
his complaint, the Court will dismiss this action with prejudice.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
-3-
CASE 0:25-cv-02086-PJS-ECW Doc. 54 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 4

1. 	Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings [ECF No. 35] is
GRANTED.
2. 	This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS.
3. 	The March 9, 2026, hearing on defendants’ motion is CANCELED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 3, 2026 	/s/ Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge
United States District Court
-4-
CASE 0:25-cv-02086-PJS-ECW Doc. 54 Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 4