Excessive Police Force at Pipeline Protest Sparks Civil Rights Class Action

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A group of Dakota Access Pipeline protestors say use of excessive police force to dispel protesters from the pipeline’s construction site violates their civil rights.

The plaintiffs are nine protestors bringing this class action lawsuit on behalf of a Class of similar protestors, known as “water protectors.” They allege that on the night of Nov. 20, they and other water protectors were assaulted by law enforcement officers who used an array of military-style implements to drive them away.

According to the class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs were gathered at the construction site to pray and protest peacefully. Law enforcement officials allegedly attacked them with “Specialty Impact Munitions (SIM), explosive teargas grenades, teargas canisters, and a water cannon spraying high pressure water.”

The plaintiffs say they are among over 200 water protectors who were injured that night by local law enforcement’s use of excessive police force.

Their class action lawsuit names as defendants Morton County, Stutsman County, the City of Mandan, and three individuals who are the respective sheriffs or chiefs of police for those jurisdictions. They plan to add other specific defendants as their identities are discovered.

The plaintiffs say they gathered at that particular place and time to protest construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, a planned 1,172-mile-long pipeline now under construction. When and if it is completed, the DAPL is expected to transfer 570,000 barrels of fracked crude oil per day from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to a storage facility in Illinois.

Protestors generally take issue with the pipeline’s expected environmental and cultural effects. Originally planned to pass near Bismarck, the pipeline’s path was diverted south following an outcry from Bismarck residents concerned about the threat of pollution in their water supply.

The new route runs the pipeline through Lakota treaty land and crosses the Missouri River at Lake Oahe. Plaintiffs say this route threatens the primary drinking water source for the Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes, as well as thousands of other people who live in the area.

Plaintiffs allege that the Nov. 20 attack was the most recent and most violent in a series of acts of excessive police force that have been going on for weeks in an attempt to repel the protestors.

Each plaintiff alleges they were injured by the excessive police force on Nov. 20. Plaintiff Vanessa Dundon says she was hit in the face with a flaming tear gas canister, then shot in the leg with a rubber bullet. She says she went to Grubes Retina Clinic in Mandan, but the staff there refused to treat her.

Plaintiff Jade Kalikolehuaokalani Wool says she was knocked back by a water cannon, leaving her completely soaked in sub-freezing temperatures. Wool says she saw a law enforcement officer continuing to fire a water cannon at a man who was injured and could not get up.

The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a Class consisting of “[a]ll persons who were shot or harmed by water, SIM, chemical agent, or grenades on November 20, 2016.”

They are currently seeking an emergency order from the court barring the defendants from using excessive police force against the protestors. They also seek a damage award including punitive damages against the three individual defendants, plus reimbursement of court costs and attorneys’ fees.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Rachel Lederman of Rachel Lederman & Alexsis C. Beach, Lauren Regan of the Civil Liberties Defense Center, James R. Fennerty of James R. Fennerty & Associates LLC and Jeffrey Haas of Nanasi and Haas.

The Dakota Access Pipeline Excessive Police Force Class Action Lawsuit is Vanessa Dundon, et al. v. Kyle Kirchmeier, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-406, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Dakota.