Doward v. City of Kettle River
Monique Annette Doward v. City of Kettle River; David Lucas, Mayor of Kettle River, in his individual and official capacities; Kathy Lake, City Clerk of Kettle River, in her individual and official capacities; Sarah Sonsalla, City Attorney for Kettle River, in her individual and official capacities; and Advanced Utility Solutions
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:24-cv-03970
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 14
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Doward v. City of Kettle River, Judge Provinzino granted summary judgment for all defendants and dismissed pro se plaintiff Monique Doward's civil rights complaint with prejudice.
Pro se litigants asserting civil rights claims against municipal governments and their officials, particularly those challenging utility disconnection procedures or other local government decisions. This ruling illustrates that a plaintiff who receives but declines offered procedural opportunities — such as inspections or hearings — cannot later succeed on a due process claim, and that failing to respond to summary judgment arguments on specific claims results in those claims being forfeited.
What happened
In Doward v. City of Kettle River (No. 24-cv-3970), Monique Annette Doward, a former Kettle River City Council member, sued the City of Kettle River, its mayor, city clerk, city attorney, and a utility contractor after the city towed her van and shut off her water in May 2024 following months of unpaid water bills. Doward brought seven claims under federal civil rights law and state law, including allegations that her procedural and substantive due process rights were violated, that she was denied equal protection, that she suffered retaliation, that her van was unlawfully seized, and that she was not paid wages she was owed as a council member.
The city and other defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. In her responses, Doward only argued about her procedural due process claim — specifically, that the city was wrongly requiring her to replace her water meter before restoring service — and did not address any of her other six claims. Because she failed to respond to those other claims, the court found she had abandoned them.
Judge Provinzino granted both summary judgment motions and dismissed the entire complaint with prejudice. On the one remaining procedural due process claim, the court found that the city had given Doward multiple opportunities to challenge the water meter determination — including offering an inspection, holding a City Council hearing she requested but refused to attend, and offering to replace the meter at no charge — and that Doward had declined each opportunity. The court held that a government entity cannot be found to have violated due process when it made a process available and the plaintiff simply chose not to use it.
The detailed version
- Doward v. City of Kettle River · No. 0:24-cv-03970
- Laura M. Provinzino
- June 9, 2026
Background
Monique Annette Doward, proceeding without a lawyer (pro se), sued the City of Kettle River, Mayor David Lucas (in his individual and official capacities), City Clerk Kathy Lake (in her individual and official capacities), City Attorney Sarah Sonsalla (in her individual and official capacities), and Advanced Utility Solutions (AUS). A fifth original defendant, JT's Towing Company, was dismissed earlier in the case.
Doward was a Kettle River City Council member until December 31, 2024, and lives in Kettle River, Minnesota. In November 2023, she stopped paying her water bill to protest what she believed was overbilling. The city sent multiple overdue notices and disconnection warnings between February and April 2024. On May 8, 2024, Doward parked her van near the water shut-off valve, blocking the city's access. The city gave her one day to move the van; she did not comply. On May 10, 2024, the city had her van towed and shut off her water.
Doward filed a complaint with the Minnesota Attorney General's Office. Sonsalla, described in the record as a private attorney hired by the city to perform legal work when necessary, responded on the city's behalf. Doward then requested a City Council hearing on the water and billing issues; the Council held one on June 17, 2024, but Doward refused to attend, stating she did not believe it would be fair. The city afterward informed her that her meter needed replacement, offered to do so at no charge, and said water would be restored once the meter was replaced. Doward never arranged for the replacement. Her past-due balance was later deemed paid, but the city maintained the meter-replacement condition. Doward stated she wanted to wait for a court order before proceeding.
Claims
Doward's amended complaint, filed December 9, 2024, asserted seven counts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (a federal civil rights statute allowing suits against government actors for constitutional violations) and state law:
- Count 1 — Procedural due process: deprivation of water service and vehicle without adequate notice or a meaningful hearing. - Count 2 — Substantive due process: city actions were arbitrary and capricious. - Count 3 — Equal protection: city forgave other residents' water debt but not hers. - Count 4 — Retaliation for raising concerns about illegal city practices. - Count 5 — Unlawful seizure of her van under the Fourth Amendment. - Counts 6 & 7 — Failure to pay wages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law for her service as a council member.
The court noted that Doward's complaint lumped all defendants together without specifying which defendant's actions violated which right.
Procedural History
A preliminary injunction motion seeking immediate restoration of water service was denied on May 30, 2025, because the court found Doward had unreasonably delayed in bringing it. Two attempts to file a second amended complaint were stricken as procedurally deficient. The Kettle River Defendants moved for summary judgment on January 30, 2026; Sonsalla filed a separate summary judgment motion the same day. Doward responded and filed a sur-reply (an additional brief after a reply) with court permission.
Legal Standard
Summary judgment (a ruling without a trial) is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to win as a matter of law. The court must view facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, but only where a genuine dispute exists. Even pro se litigants must respond to summary judgment motions with specific factual support. Failing to oppose a basis for summary judgment waives that argument.
Analysis
I. Waiver of Counts 2–7 and All Claims Against Sonsalla
The Kettle River Defendants addressed all seven counts in their summary judgment brief. Sonsalla separately argued she was a private actor (not a state actor subject to § 1983 liability), was entitled to qualified immunity (a doctrine shielding government officials from certain civil suits), and that Doward had not identified any specific unlawful action by Sonsalla.
In her responses, Doward addressed only her procedural due process claim about the water meter. She did not respond substantively to the arguments on Counts 2 through 7, and she did not address Sonsalla's arguments about being a private actor, qualified immunity, or the absence of identified wrongdoing. Regarding Sonsalla specifically, Doward pointed only to the letter Sonsalla sent to the Minnesota Attorney General's Office, arguing a jury could infer Sonsalla's advice contributed to the challenged decisions.
The court held that the complete failure to oppose grounds for summary judgment constitutes waiver. Accordingly, the court found Doward forfeited Counts 2 through 7 against all defendants, and forfeited all claims against Sonsalla.
II. Procedural Due Process (Count 1)
The court proceeded to the merits of Count 1 — the procedural due process claim — even though Doward's theory at summary judgment (that the meter-replacement condition was itself imposed without adequate process) was arguably not pleaded in the amended complaint. The court noted defendants had addressed this theory in briefing and could not claim prejudice, so it elected to consider it.
Legal framework
A procedural due process claim requires showing (1) that a protected liberty or property interest was affected, and (2) that the process provided was constitutionally inadequate. The court assumed water service constitutes a protected property interest, consistent with Kettle River's apparent concession on that point. The constitutional minimum is the opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."
Application
The court found the record indisputably showed Doward received adequate process:
- As early as March 4, 2024, Kettle River informed Doward it believed her meter was faulty, offered an inspection, and offered to replace the meter if needed. - Doward refused the inspection because she did not trust city employees. - Doward herself requested a City Council hearing on the water issue; the Council held one on June 17, 2024. - Doward refused to attend, citing disbelief in the fairness of the proceeding. - After the hearing, the city informed Doward of the result and offered to replace the meter at no charge or allow her to hire her own plumber. - Doward has not arranged for replacement, stating she wants a court order first.
The court held that a state cannot be found to have violated due process when it made procedural protections available and the plaintiff chose not to use them, citing Riggins v. Board of Regents of University of Nebraska.
Doward's two arguments were rejected: (1) that the city lacked an ordinance authorizing the meter-replacement condition goes to whether the city's decision was correct, not whether the process was adequate; and (2) that the meter is not actually faulty also challenges only the outcome, not the process. Procedural due process protects the right to a fair process, not the right to a favorable result.
Disposition
The court granted the Kettle River Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 52), granted Sonsalla's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 57), and dismissed Doward's amended complaint (ECF No. 12) with prejudice — meaning Doward may not refile these claims.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.