Brooks v. Lindlbauer
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:22-cv-02011
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Brooks v. Lindlbauer, Judge Blackwell accepted the recommendation, dismissed Brooks’s claims without prejudice, and denied his other motions.
Joshua Adam Brooks’s claims against David A. Lindlbauer, Jana Brister-Korby (Skye), Charles S. Fai, Mindy C. Seigert-Horgeshimer, and Scott E. Giannini were dismissed without prejudice in the respects specified by the order. The court also declined supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims and denied his temporary-restraining-order and deadline-extension motions.
What happened
In Brooks v. Lindlbauer, Joshua Adam Brooks sued David A. Lindlbauer and four other defendants. The opinion does not describe the events behind the lawsuit, but it identifies claims under a civil-rights statute and a state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed without prejudice Brooks’s official-capacity claims for money damages for lack of authority to hear them, his official-capacity claims for injunctive and declaratory relief for failure to state a claim, and all of his individual-capacity claims for money damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief for failure to state a claim. The court declined to hear Brooks’s state-law claim, denied his request for a temporary restraining order, and denied his deadline-extension request as moot.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s report and recommendation after finding no clear error. No timely objections had been filed.
The detailed version
- Brooks v. Lindlbauer · No. 0:22-cv-02011
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Apr. 17, 2023
Background
Joshua Adam Brooks sued David A. Lindlbauer, Jana Brister-Korby (Skye), Charles S. Fai, Mindy C. Seigert-Horgeshimer, and Scott E. Giannini in their individual and official capacities. The opinion identifies claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but it does not describe the underlying events or explain the defendants’ roles beyond the capacities listed in the caption.
The defendants moved to dismiss. Brooks also moved for a temporary restraining order and for an extension of a deadline.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a report and recommendation on March 24, 2023. No objections were filed within the permitted time. Because there were no timely objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Rulings
The court accepted the report and recommendation and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss as follows:
- Brooks’s § 1983 official-capacity claims seeking monetary damages against all defendants were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked authority to hear those claims in that form. - Brooks’s § 1983 official-capacity claims seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against all defendants were dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. - Brooks’s § 1983 individual-capacity claims seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief against all defendants were dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. - The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Brooks’s state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The order did not state that those claims were dismissed.
The court denied Brooks’s motion for a temporary restraining order. It also denied his motion for an extension of the deadline as moot because his opposition to the motion to dismiss had already been filed and considered before the report and recommendation was issued. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.