Campbell v. City of Duluth
Clifton Scott Campbell v. City of Duluth; Officer Kneeland; Officer Lemendger; Officer Schutte; Former Chief Tusken
- John Tunheim
- 0:25-cv-01476
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Campbell v. City of Duluth, Judge Tunheim adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed all of pro se plaintiff Clifton Scott Campbell's civil rights and state law claims against Duluth police officers and city officials without prejudice, meaning Campbell may be able to refile them.
Pro se civil rights plaintiffs suing municipal police departments and officers for excessive force and related claims, particularly regarding the consequences of missing objection deadlines to magistrate judge recommendations and the difference between dismissal with and without prejudice.
What happened
In Campbell v. City of Duluth, Clifton Scott Campbell, representing himself, sued the City of Duluth, three police officers (Kneeland, Lemendger, and Schutte), and Former Police Chief Tusken, alleging that officers used excessive force against him, that other officers failed to stop that force, and that defendants committed intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation under state law. Campbell also brought civil rights claims under a federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1983) accusing the City and former Chief Tusken of unconstitutional policies and conduct.
Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation on October 15, 2025, recommending that the defendants' motions to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part, and separately ordering that Campbell's motions to amend his complaint be denied. Campbell filed an objection to that recommendation, but it was filed more than three weeks after the deadline for objections had passed, and it only repeated arguments already considered by the Magistrate Judge — so it received a limited review for obvious legal error rather than a fresh, full review.
Judge Tunheim found no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis, overruled Campbell's objection, and adopted the recommendation. All of Campbell's claims — including multiple excessive force claims against Officer Kneeland, failure-to-intervene claims against Officers Lemendger and Schutte, state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation against all defendants, and federal civil rights claims against the City of Duluth and Former Chief Tusken — were dismissed without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means Campbell is not permanently barred from bringing these claims again, though he would need to address the deficiencies identified by the court.
The detailed version
Case
Clifton Scott Campbell v. City of Duluth; Officer Kneeland; Officer Lemendger; Officer Schutte; Former Chief Tusken, Civil No. 25-1476 (JRT/LIB), United States District Court, District of Minnesota.
Judge
John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge.
Background
Plaintiff Clifton Scott Campbell, proceeding pro se (representing himself without an attorney), filed suit against the City of Duluth and several of its law enforcement personnel. The defendants filed two separate motions to dismiss: one by Officers Kneeland, Lemendger, and Schutte (Docket No. 7), and one by the City of Duluth and Former Chief Tusken (Docket No. 15). Campbell also filed three motions to amend his complaint (Docket Nos. 28, 32, and 36).
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R)
On October 15, 2025, Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued an Order and R&R. The Order portion denied Campbell's three motions to amend the complaint. The R&R portion recommended that defendants' motions to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part — specifically, that claims be dismissed without prejudice (allowing potential refiling) rather than with prejudice (which would bar refiling permanently).
Campbell's Objection
Campbell filed an objection to the R&R on November 21, 2025. This was more than three weeks past the 14-day deadline for objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). The objection raised arguments about the veracity of body-worn camera and dash-camera footage — arguments that had already been presented to and considered by the Magistrate Judge.
Standard of Review
Because Campbell's objections were untimely and merely repeated arguments already considered by the Magistrate Judge, Judge Tunheim applied a 'clear error' standard of review rather than the more searching 'de novo' (fresh, independent) review that timely and specific objections would trigger. Under the clear error standard, the court asks only whether the R&R is obviously wrong on its face.
Ruling
Judge Tunheim found no clear error in the R&R, overruled Campbell's objection, and adopted the R&R in full. The following claims were dismissed without prejudice:
1. Against Officer Kneeland — four separate excessive force claims: (a) twisting Campbell's arm too forcefully behind his back; (b) allegedly punching Campbell in the jaw; (c) pushing Campbell to the ground while Campbell resisted arrest; and (d) placing a hand and arm underneath Campbell's chin.
2. Against Officers Lemendger and Schutte — failure to intervene (i.e., failing to stop Officer Kneeland's alleged use of excessive force).
3. Against Officers Kneeland, Lemendger, and Schutte — state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
4. Against Officer Schutte — state law claim for defamation.
5. Against the City of Duluth — federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on Monell liability (a legal theory holding municipalities responsible for unconstitutional policies or customs), and state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation.
6. Against Former Chief Tusken — § 1983 claim in both his individual and official capacity, and state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation.
All dismissals are without prejudice. The motions to dismiss were denied to the extent defendants sought dismissal with prejudice. The opinion does not specify what claims, if any, survived and remain pending; the order states it grants dismissal of 'Plaintiff's claims' but denies dismissal 'with prejudice,' suggesting the court is leaving open the possibility of amendment or refiling rather than allowing any claim to proceed as currently pleaded.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.