Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, The
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:19-cv-02811
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Judge Wright overruled objections, adopted the recommendation, granted dismissal motions, denied injunction motions, and required permission for similar future actions.
Hollis J. Larson; the State Defendants, Moose Lake Defendants, and Carlton County Defendants; and Larson’s official-capacity, remaining federal, and state-law claims. Larson must obtain written permission before filing a similar District of Minnesota action concerning the 2017 incident, arrest, and prosecution.
What happened
In Hollis J. Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services et al., a magistrate judge recommended granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss, declining jurisdiction over Larson’s state-law claims, and denying his requests for injunctions. Larson objected, but his objections repeated earlier arguments without enough specificity.
The district court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation. It granted the State Defendants’, Moose Lake Defendants’, and Carlton County Defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice in most instances, dismissed the official-capacity claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice, and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright overruled Larson’s objections and denied his motions for temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions. The court also required Larson to obtain written permission from a judicial officer before filing another District of Minnesota action based on the same or similar allegations concerning the 2017 incident, arrest, and prosecution.
The detailed version
- Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, The · No. 0:19-cv-02811
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Dec. 15, 2020
Background
The court reviewed a September 9, 2020 report and recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz. The recommendation advised the court to grant the defendants’ motions to dismiss, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Larson’s state-law claims, and deny Larson’s request for injunctive relief. Larson filed objections.
Review of the Objections
The district court determined that Larson’s objections were general and repeated arguments he had already presented to the magistrate judge. For that reason, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of the issues. The court overruled the objections, finding that they lacked sufficient specificity or legal merit, and concluded that the recommendation contained no clear error.
Rulings
The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety and entered these rulings:
- The State Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. Larson’s official-capacity claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. His remaining federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and his state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice. - The Moose Lake Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. Larson’s federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and his state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice. - The Carlton County Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. Larson’s federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and his state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice. - Larson’s motion for temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions was denied.
The court also enjoined Larson from filing another action in the District of Minnesota based on the same or similar allegations concerning the 2017 incident, arrest, and prosecution unless he first obtained written permission from a judicial officer in that district.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court ruled on motions to dismiss and injunctive relief, including a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, rather than deciding the underlying claims through a merits ruling.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.