Larsen v. Benson

Background

Daniel Larsen sued Dennis Benson, Lucinda Jesson, Greg Carlson, Kevin Moser, David Prescott, Janine Hebert, Tom Lundquist, Elizabeth Barbo, Dana Osborne, Kelly Minor, Rob Rose, Linda Berglin, Mark Dayton, Anoka County Social Services, and Kurt Neir. The caption states that the defendants, other than the designation concerning Kurt Neir, were sued in their individual and official capacities as employees of the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Larsen represented himself. The State Defendants were all defendants except Kurt Neir.

The matter came before the district court after Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended granting Kurt Neir’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granting the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss, denying Larsen’s motion opposing dismissal, and denying Larsen’s request for sanctions under Rule 11. The recommendation concluded that Counts 1–4, 6–12, 15, and 17 were barred by claim preclusion. Claim preclusion is a rule that prevents a party from pursuing claims that were or could have been litigated in an earlier case. The recommendation stated that Larsen was among the class members seeking relief in the earlier class action and that the claims were or could have been litigated there.

Larsen’s Objection

Larsen argued that the failure of class counsel in the earlier class action to argue for the standard described in Youngberg v. Romeo should not prevent him from raising claims under that standard. He argued that applying claim preclusion would deny him an opportunity to have his claims considered under Youngberg.

The district court independently reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which Larsen objected. It found that Larsen had not identified a legal or factual error and agreed that the requirements for claim preclusion were satisfied. The court relied in part on an Eighth Circuit decision stating that the appellants in the earlier litigation had waived reliance on the Youngberg standard by failing to raise it in their last appeal. Because Larsen was among the class members pursuing relief in that litigation, the district court held that the decision had preclusive effect in Larsen’s case.

Rulings

Judge Ann D. Montgomery overruled Larsen’s objection and adopted the report and recommendation. The court ruled as follows:

- Kurt Neir’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the claims against him were dismissed without prejudice. - The State Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. - Larsen’s motion opposing dismissal was denied. - Larsen’s claims for monetary damages against the State Defendants in their official capacities were dismissed without prejudice. - The prospective relief sought against the State Defendants in their official capacities was dismissed with prejudice. - The remainder of Larsen’s claims against the State Defendants were dismissed without prejudice. - Larsen’s memorandum supporting his sanctions motion was denied. - Judge Wright’s order denying Larsen’s motions to consolidate the case and appoint counsel was affirmed.

The opinion does not identify the specific causes of action underlying all of Larsen’s claims.