Greene v. Benson

7 Citing cases

  1. Miles v. Harpsteadt

    23-CV-2848 (JRT/JFD) (D. Minn. Jul. 22, 2024)

    Turning to the privity of Defendants, Defendants Harpstead, Johnston, and Kneisel were either named defendants in Karsjens or in privity with the named defendants, as are all officials of the Minnesota Department of Human Services “sued in connection with their alleged roles and responsibilities as representatives of MSOP.” See Greene v. Benson, No. 11-CV-979 (JRT/DJF), 2023 WL 3815422, at *5 (D. Minn. June 5, 2023), R. &. R. adopted, 2023 WL 5016653 (D. Minn. Aug. 7, 2023).

  2. Bishop v. Swanson

    12-cv-135 (KMM/DTS) (D. Minn. Nov. 9, 2023)

    And, though the plaintiffs in Karsjens did not expressly assert “totality of the conditions” as a legal theory, claim preclusion applies to “different legal claims which spring from the same set of facts.” Greene v. Benson, No. 11-cv-979, 2023 WL 3815422, at *6 (D. Minn. June 5, 2023), adopted by 2023 WL 5016653 (D. Minn. Aug. 7, 2023). This claim is therefore precluded and should be dismissed.

  3. Beaulieu v. Benson

    CIVIL 11-2755 (DWF/JFD) (D. Minn. Aug. 25, 2023)

    The remaining Defendants are in privity with the defendants from Karsjens as all are alleged Minnesota Department of Human Services officials “sued in connection with their alleged roles and responsibilities as representatives of MSOP.” Greene v. Benson, No. 11-cv-979, 2023 WL 3815422, at *5 (D. Minn. June 5, 2023).

  4. Daywitt v. Minn. Dep't of Human Servs.

    CIVIL 18-3430 (DWF/ECW) (D. Minn. Aug. 25, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    were named defendants. The remaining Defendants are in privity with the defendants from Karsjens as all are alleged Minnesota Department of Human Services officials or entities “sued in connection with their alleged roles and responsibilities as representatives of MSOP.” Greene v. Benson, No. 11-cv-979, 2023 WL 3815422, at *5 (D. Minn. June 5, 2023).

  5. Karsjens v. McCauley

    Civil 15-2590 (DWF/JFD) (D. Minn. Aug. 23, 2023)

    Defendants are in privity with the defendants from Karsjens as all are alleged Minnesota Department of Human Services officials “sued in connection with their alleged roles and responsibilities as representatives of MSOP.” Greene v. Benson, No. 11-cv-979, 2023 WL 3815422, at *5 (D. Minn. June 5, 2023).

  6. Brown v. Ludeman

    11-cv-2859 (JRT/ECW) (D. Minn. Jul. 7, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Claim preclusion arises from the operative facts and claims asserted in the prior matter, not the parties' arguments made therein.” Greene v. Benson, No. 11-CV-979 (JRT/DJF), 2023 WL 3815422, at *7 (D. Minn. June 5, 2023) (footnote and citation omitted). A. Rule 8 Pleading

  7. Benson v. Harpstead

    22-cv-1601 (ECT/TNL) (D. Minn. Jun. 29, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    The operative pleading in Karsjens was the Third Amended Complaint. See, e.g., Greene v. Benson, No. 11-cv-979 (JRT/DJF), 2023 WL 3815422, at *1 (D. Minn. June 5, 2023); White, 2023 WL 3615247, at *3; Karsjens IV, 2022 WL 542467, at *3; see generally Karsjens Third Amended Compl., ECF No. 635 in No. 11-cv-3659. Among other defendants, the Third Amended Complaint brought claims against the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services in the Commissioner's official capacity.