Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 10, 2025

Holmes v. Minnesota DOC

Judge
Patrick Schiltz
Docket
0:23-cv-02969
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
3
Motion to DismissCivil RightsADA / Disability
In one sentence

In Holmes v. Minnesota DOC, Judge Schiltz adopted the R&R, granted one dismissal motion, and partly granted and partly denied another.

Who this affects

Stephan Nicholas Holmes’s claims against the named defendants. All claims against Centurion, Dr. Jennis Iruke, and Luke DeHaan were dismissed. Some claims against the other named defendants may proceed, and all other claims were dismissed.

What happened

In Holmes v. Minnesota DOC, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommended decision after no party objected. The court reviewed that recommendation for clear error and found none.

The court dismissed all claims against Centurion, Dr. Jennis Iruke, and Luke DeHaan. It partly granted and partly denied the other defendants’ motion: specified deliberate-indifference, supervision, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Rehabilitation Act claims may proceed, while all other claims were dismissed.

Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz adopted the recommendation and entered these rulings on the defendants’ motions to dismiss.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Holmes v. Minnesota DOC · No. 0:23-cv-02969
Judge
Patrick Schiltz
Date
Jan. 10, 2025

Background and procedure

United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation on December 6, 2024. No party objected. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and found none. The court adopted the recommendation.

Rulings on the motions to dismiss

The court granted Centurion, Dr. Jennis Iruke, and Luke DeHaan’s motion to dismiss. All claims against those defendants were dismissed.

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by Minnesota, the Minnesota Department of Corrections, Joan Wolff, Paul Schnell, Jesse Pugh, Cheri Short, James Amsterdam, Cassandra Halfacre, Tina Sneen, Emily Melingen, and Kristen Grunewaldt.

The following claims may proceed:

- Count I, alleging deliberate indifference based on an inadequate bed, against Cassandra Halfacre in both her official capacity and individual capacity. The official-capacity claim may seek only declaratory and injunctive relief. - Counts IV, VII, and VIII, alleging deliberate indifference based on deprivation of Lyrica, against Joan Wolff, Kristen Grunewaldt, and Emily Melingen in both their official and individual capacities. The official-capacity claims may seek only declaratory and injunctive relief. - Count II, alleging failure to supervise, against Joan Wolff, Kristen Grunewaldt, Emily Melingen, and Cassandra Halfacre in their individual capacities. - Count IX, alleging failure to supervise, against Joan Wolff in her individual capacity. - Counts X and XI, alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act based on an inadequate bed and shower chair, against Minnesota, the Minnesota Department of Corrections, and Cassandra Halfacre in her official capacity. The claim against Halfacre in her official capacity may seek only declaratory and injunctive relief.

All other claims were dismissed.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation. The first motion to dismiss was granted, and all claims against its three defendants were dismissed. The second motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, with the claims listed in the order allowed to proceed and all other claims dismissed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.