Case Explained: Sophia Wilansky v. Morton County, North Dakota; Kyle Kirchmeier

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-06-24

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of Sophia Wilansky’s § 1983 claims against Morton County, North Dakota, and various law enforcement officers regarding injuries sustained during a pipeline protest. The court held that Wilansky failed to state a claim for a Fourth Amendment seizure or a Fourteenth Amendment excessive force violation because the relevant law was not clearly established at the time of the incident in November 2016, thereby entitling the officers to qualified immunity. The court applied the objective test for seizures under *Torres v. Madrid*, requiring an “objective manifestation” of intent to restrain rather than subjective intent or the plaintiff’s perception of being trapped. The court found that the officers’ use of less-lethal munitions and aerial warning rounds was intended to disperse protesters, not to seize them, and that as of 2016, it was not clearly established that dispersal force constituted a seizure. Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment claim, the court applied the “shocks the conscience” standard from *County of Sacramento v. Lewis*, rejecting Wilansky’s argument for an objective reasonableness standard applicable only to pretrial detainees under *Kingsley v. Hendrickson*. The court further determined that Wilansky failed to plead sufficient facts linking specific officers to the alleged constitutional violations and did not adequately allege a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct necessary to hold Morton County liable under *Monell*. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice because Wilansky failed to timely seek leave to amend her complaints despite having months to do so. As a result of this decision, the judgments dismissing all claims against the defendants are final and enforceable, precluding Wilansky from pursuing further litigation on these specific allegations in federal court.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.