The parties, however, dispute whether statutory immunity bars claims against Sheriff Lindgren. The law is clear — Minnesota does not limit the doctrine to counties.See, e.g., Mann v. Shevich, No. 08-5202, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16109, at *28 (D. Minn. 2010) (finding sheriff and county immune); Hawkinson v. Anoka County, No. A05-2251, 2006 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 996, at *14-15 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2006) (finding district court erred in not finding statutory immunity for a county and its sheriff). Both the County and the Sheriff are entitled to statutory immunity.
(Pls.' Mem. Opp. Summ. J. 18.) They are wrong. Minnesota does not limit this doctrine to counties. See, e.g., Mann v. Shevich, No. 08-5202, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16109, at *28 (D. Minn. 2010) (finding sheriff and county immune); Hawkinson v. Anoka County, No. A05-2251, 2006 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 996, at *14-15 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2006) (finding district court erred in not finding statutory immunity for a county and its sheriff). Both Mille Lacs County and Sheriff Lindgren are immune from plaintiffs' claims.