Leftwich v. County of Dakota
- Joan Ericksen
- 0:18-cv-01144
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Leftwich v. County of Dakota, Judge Ericksen affirmed scheduling rulings, denied consolidation or amendment, denied dismissal, and stayed the second case.
Leroy Leftwich and the defendants in both related cases were affected: the first case remained unconsolidated and unamended, the defendants’ dismissal motion was denied, and the second case was stayed pending resolution of the first.
What happened
Leftwich v. County of Dakota concerns two related lawsuits brought by Leroy Leftwich, trustee for Cameron Leftwich’s statutory next-of-kin class. The lawsuits involve Cameron Leftwich’s arrest, transport to the Dakota County Jail, and death there the next day. Both cases assert claims under federal civil-rights law and state law involving medical care, training, and wrongful death.
In the first case, Leftwich asked for more time to amend the complaint and later asked to combine the two cases or amend the complaint. The magistrate judge denied those requests. In the second case, the defendants moved to dismiss it, and a magistrate judge recommended granting that motion and denying consolidation or amendment in the first case.
Judge Ericksen affirmed the magistrate judge’s scheduling orders, denied Leftwich’s motion to consolidate or amend, denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and stayed the second case until the first case is resolved. The order did not decide the underlying medical-care, training, or wrongful-death claims.
The detailed version
- Leftwich v. County of Dakota · No. 0:18-cv-01144
- Joan Ericksen
- July 3, 2019
Background
Cameron Leftwich was arrested on October 27, 2016, and transported by the City of Eagan Police Department to the Dakota County Jail. He died at the jail on October 28, 2016. Leroy Leftwich, acting as trustee of the statutory class of Cameron Leftwich’s next of kin, filed Case No. 18-cv-1144 against the County of Dakota, the City of Eagan, and individual defendants. The claims were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and state law, and alleged inadequate medical care, failure to train, and wrongful death.
The scheduling order in the first case set October 29, 2018, as the deadline for motions to amend the pleadings and January 2, 2019, as the deadline to complete fact discovery. On January 2, 2019, Leftwich moved to extend the scheduling deadlines and amend the complaint. After submitting a supplemental memorandum on that motion, he filed Case No. 19-cv-393, asserting the same general types of claims against the defendants from the first case and three additional individuals.
The defendants in the second case filed a joint motion to dismiss. Leftwich then moved in the first case to consolidate the two cases or, alternatively, to amend the complaint.
Court’s review and ruling
The magistrate judge denied Leftwich’s motion to extend the scheduling order and amend the complaint. Leftwich objected. After reviewing the record, the district court affirmed the April 9 and April 10, 2019 orders because they were neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
The magistrate judge later recommended granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second case and denying Leftwich’s motion to consolidate or amend in the first case. After conducting a fresh review of the disputed portions of the record, the district court modified that recommended disposition. Instead of dismissing Case No. 19-cv-393, the court stayed it pending resolution of Case No. 18-cv-1144. The court accepted the recommendation to deny consolidation or amendment.
Disposition
The court overruled Leftwich’s objections, affirmed the April 9 and April 10 orders, denied Leftwich’s motion to consolidate or alternatively amend, denied the defendants’ joint motion to dismiss, and stayed Case No. 19-cv-393 pending resolution of Case No. 18-cv-1144. The order addressed case-management and dismissal motions; it did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.