Andersen v. Carver County Sheriffs Office
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:22-cv-03137
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Andersen v. Carver County Sheriffs Office, Judge Menendez partly granted and partly denied dismissal, dismissing some claims while leaving specified claims pending.
Travis Clay Andersen’s claims were dismissed in part. The claims concerning Adam Minette and Ben Beyer identified in the order, and all claims against Tosha Bell and Kimberly Grob, were not dismissed by this order; other claims and defendants were dismissed.
What happened
In Andersen v. Carver County Sheriffs Office, several defendants sought dismissal of Travis Clay Andersen’s amended complaint. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing nearly all defendants and claims, while preserving certain allegations against Adam Minette and Ben Beyer and all claims against Tosha Bell and Kimberly Grob.
No party objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and agreed with it except for one point: claims seeking declarations or court orders requiring action had become moot, meaning the court no longer had a live dispute to decide.
Judge Menendez accepted the recommendation as modified. She granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied Andersen’s opposing motion, dismissed the declaratory and injunctive-relief claims without prejudice, and dismissed the remaining claims and defendants with prejudice except for the specified allegations against Minette and Beyer and all claims against Bell and Grob.
The detailed version
- Andersen v. Carver County Sheriffs Office · No. 0:22-cv-03137
- Katherine Menendez
- Aug. 28, 2024
Background
Travis Clay Andersen sued the Carver County Sheriffs Office and individual defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss Andersen’s amended complaint. United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko recommended granting that motion in part and denying it in part, and denying Andersen’s motion opposing dismissal.
The recommendation stated that all defendants and claims should be dismissed with prejudice except: (1) Andersen’s claim that Adam Minette used excessive force unreasonably, resulting in Andersen’s broken toe; (2) Andersen’s claim that Ben Beyer unreasonably pressured medical staff about treatment of the broken toe in a way that affected whether the bone would heal properly; and (3) all claims against Tosha Bell and Kimberly Grob, because the defendants had not moved to dismiss those claims.
Review of the Recommendation
The deadline for objections to the recommendation passed without either side filing objections. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court found no error in the recommendation but modified it concerning Andersen’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.
The court agreed that those claims had become moot, meaning that no live dispute remained for the court to resolve. Because the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal power to hear those claims—it clarified that those claims had to be dismissed without prejudice rather than with prejudice.
Rulings
Judge Menendez accepted the Report and Recommendation as modified. The court ruled as follows:
- The defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted in part and denied in part. - Andersen’s motion opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied. - Andersen’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. - All remaining defendants and claims were dismissed with prejudice, except for the allegations against Minette concerning excessive force and the broken toe, the allegations against Beyer concerning pressure on medical staff and treatment of the broken toe, and all claims against Bell and Grob.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.