Fisherman v. Launderville
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:21-cv-02406
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Fisherman v. Launderville, Judge Blackwell granted summary judgment in part for Barnum and Pawelk but denied it for Launderville because factual questions remained.
Cory E. Fisherman’s claims against Barnum and Pawelk were resolved in the defendants’ favor at summary judgment, while his claims against Launderville remained pending because factual questions remained.
What happened
In Fisherman v. Launderville, the defendants and the plaintiff objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendations about the plaintiff’s claims. The court reviewed those objections and accepted the recommendation.
The court granted the defendants’ request for summary judgment on the claims against Barnum and Pawelk. It denied summary judgment on the claims against Launderville because questions remained about whether Launderville violated the rule against law enforcement officers beating restrained people.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell overruled both objections, accepted the report and recommendation, and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part.
The detailed version
- Fisherman v. Launderville · No. 0:21-cv-02406
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Mar. 27, 2023
Background
Cory E. Fisherman, who represented himself, sued David Launderville, Patrick Barnum, and Chris Pawelk. The opinion does not identify the specific claims by name. The defendants asked for summary judgment, which is a ruling entered without a trial when the record shows no genuine dispute requiring a trial on a claim.
A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment on the claims against Barnum and denying it on the claims against Launderville. The defendants objected to the recommendation concerning Launderville, and Fisherman objected to the recommendation concerning Barnum. The court reviewed the disputed portions of the recommendation independently and reviewed the undisputed portions for clear error. The court also noted that Fisherman’s filings, as a self-represented party, were read liberally.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected both sides’ objections. As to Launderville, the defendants argued that earlier cases involving law enforcement officers beating restrained people were factually different. The court explained that those factual differences did not eliminate the legal principle that law enforcement officers are not entitled to beat someone who is restrained, whether the person is a bound prisoner or a subdued suspect. On the record before the court, factual questions remained about whether Launderville’s conduct violated that principle, so summary judgment was not appropriate on those claims.
The court found no legal or factual error requiring rejection of the magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning Barnum. It also found no clear error or legal defect in the remaining portions of the recommendation. The court corrected the spelling of Barnum’s name, noting that the complaint and case caption had used “Burnum.”
Ruling
The court overruled the defendants’ objections and Fisherman’s objection, accepted the report and recommendation in its entirety, and ruled on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as follows:
- Summary judgment was granted as to Fisherman’s claims against Barnum and Pawelk. - Summary judgment was denied as to Fisherman’s claims against Launderville.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell therefore allowed the claims against Launderville to continue while resolving the claims against Barnum and Pawelk in the defendants’ favor at the summary-judgment stage.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.