Thompson v. Ludeman
- Donovan Frank
- 0:11-cv-01704
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Thompson v. Ludeman, Judge Frank vacated an old recommendation, denied several motions, and denied defendants’ dismissal motion without prejudice.
Joseph Thompson and the defendants. The denial of emergency relief concerned policies and conditions at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, from which Thompson had been transferred.
What happened
In Thompson v. Ludeman, the court lifted a stay that had lasted more than a decade because judgment had been entered in a related case. The court noted that Joseph Thompson had been part of that case’s class and that the earlier judgment might bar some claims, while other arguments might have changed.
The court vacated the magistrate judge’s earlier recommendation, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, and ordered defendants to file an amended dismissal motion or another response within 90 days. It also denied Thompson’s request for judicial notice and denied his request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction because he had been transferred from the facility whose policies he challenged.
Judge Donovan W. Frank entered the order on October 5, 2022, and directed that judgment be entered concerning the denied request for emergency relief.
The detailed version
- Thompson v. Ludeman · No. 0:11-cv-01704
- Donovan Frank
- Oct. 5, 2022
Background
The case had been stayed for more than a decade while a related case was resolved. After judgment was entered in that related case, the court lifted the stay. Thompson had been a member of the class in the related case, and the court said that claim preclusion—the rule that can bar relitigation of matters already resolved—might bar some claims in this case. The court also said that some arguments previously made by defendants might no longer apply and that defendants might have new arguments.
Three motions remained pending: Thompson’s motion asking the court to take judicial notice of facts, defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Thompson’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction concerning policies or conditions at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. A magistrate judge had previously recommended denying the judicial-notice motion and granting the dismissal motion in part and denying it in part. That recommendation also addressed a request for appointed counsel; the court said that request was moot because Thompson had since been represented by counsel.
Rulings
The court vacated the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. It denied defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered defendants to file an amended dismissal motion or a responsive pleading within 90 days of the order.
The court independently agreed with the reasoning supporting denial of Thompson’s motion to take judicial notice and denied that motion. It also denied Thompson’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The court explained that Thompson could not show a current threat of irreparable harm because he had been transferred from the Minnesota Sex Offender Program to prison and was no longer subject to the policies and conditions he sought to change. The court directed that judgment be entered concerning the denial of that motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.