Filed Date: June 2, 2020
Closed Date: Sept. 26, 2025
Clearinghouse coding complete
This lawsuit was filed on June 2, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The case arose out of the 2020 protests that began after Minneapolis police killed George Floyd. The plaintiffs in this case alleged that Minneapolis police targeted journalists covering the protests in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The original complaint sought class certification for a class consisting of "all members of the news media . . . who intend to engage in news gathering or reporting activities in Minnesota related to the protest activities that followed the death of George Floyd and the law enforcement response to those protests." Defendants included various city and state officials and the City of Minneapolis; they were represented by ACLU Minnesota and private counsel.
The complaint alleged that police actions against the plaintiffs constituted retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, unlawful seizure and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and unlawful arrests violating the procedural Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order (TRO), a preliminary injunction, a permanent injunction, class certification, declaratory relief, money damages with interest, and attorneys' fees. They also submitted separate motions for class certification and an expedited motion for a temporary restraining order. The case was assigned to Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright and referred to Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz.
On June 5, 2020, defendants opposed plaintiffs' motions for class certification and the TRO. Three days later plaintiffs amended their complaint to add an individual plaintiff and to add the Communications Workers of America as a plaintiff.
The next day, Judge Wright issued an order denying class certification and denying the TRO. Regarding class certification, Judge Wright stated that the plaintiffs would need to wait for more discovery to happen. On the TRO, Judge Wright said that there was no evidence, nor did plaintiffs allege, that the behavior plaintiffs sought to enjoin was persistent beyond May 31, 2020. To grant the TRO, the behavior plaintiffs sought to enjoin must have been "imminent." 2020 WL 3056705.
Before defendants could respond to the complaint, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July 30, 2020. The new complaint added charges of civil conspiracy to deprive rights, failure to intervene in defense of rights, violations of Due Process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and another count of violating the First Amendment for retaliation.
The plaintiffs filed another motion for a TRO on April 14, 2021, seeking to enjoin the State Defendants from using physical force and chemical agents (like pepper spray and tear gas) against journalists, and prohibiting the defendants from seizing photographic equipment. Judge Wright granted the motion two days later and noted that the order would expire two weeks later. 338 F.R.D. 109. On April 29, Judge Wright extended the TRO to May 7, 2021, then extended it again to May 14. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
On July 29, 2021, the court denied defendants' multiple motions to dismiss in all regards except for the Fifth Amendment due process claim. 2021 WL 3222495. The court noted that the Fifth Amendment only applies to federal actors; because a federal actor was not alleged as a defendant, this claim was dismissed.
The court converted the April 16 TRO into a preliminary injunction with two augmentations on October 28, 2021. 2021 WL 5003065. First, the court expanded the geographic scope beyond Brooklyn Center. Defendants had to provide copies of the preliminary injunction to all of the state defendants’ employees. Second, the court further expanded the injunction's scope by including not just the state defendant's employees, but also “other persons who are in active concert or participation with” them. The court also waived the bond requirement, as it did for the TRO, on the plaintiffs' request.
After the court granted the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction, after being granted extra time, the defendants filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on December 29, 2021.
The parties eventually reached a mediated settlement agreement. This settlement included $825,000 for the journalist plaintiffs, plus numerous policy changes to prevent future assaults. But because this case implicated important public interests, the settlement required approval of the district court. On February 8, 2022, the district court approved the parties' request to convert the preliminary injunction into a monitored six-year injunction without substantial changes. 2022 WL 370161. On February 11, 2022, the parties stipulated to dismiss the appeal pending in the 8th Circuit.
On March 2, 2022, the court dismissed with prejudice the claims against the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner, Minnesota State Patrol Colonel, and the Minnesota State Patrol.
On June 6, 2022, the court affirmed a magistrate judge's denial of plaintiffs' motion to extend discovery deadlines in a civil rights lawsuit filed by journalists and press members. Despite having over 17 months to seek discovery from the City Defendants, the plaintiffs did not serve discovery requests on them until November 5, 2021, providing insufficient time before the deadline. The court applied the "extremely deferential" standard of review for magistrate judge rulings and found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the diligence required for good cause under FRCP 16(b). The court rejected plaintiffs' arguments regarding defendants' agreement to modifications and changed circumstances, concluding that their tactical decision to focus on injunctive relief against other defendants was insufficient to excuse their lack of diligence.
On August 4, 2022, the plaintiffs filed another motion for class certification.
On November 30, 2022, the parties stipulated to dismiss certain claims against defendant Hennepin County Sheriff David Hutchins. The next day, the parties also stipulated to dismiss claims against Medaria Arradondo. That same day, Sheriff Hutchinson filed a motion for summary judgment. The parties briefed on this matter, and on December 7, 2022, the parties stipulated and the court agreed to dismiss with prejudice all claims against defendant David Hutchinson except for a count of civil conspiracy. The court also dismissed with prejudice all claims against defendant Medaria Arradondo in his individual capacity.
On December 5, 2022, the Communications Workers of America filed a motion for summary judgment, and numerous declarations of opposition were submitted in response.
On February 15, 2023, the court denied the motion for class certification. The court found that while the numerosity requirement was satisfied, the commonality and typicality requirements were not met⁻. The court determined that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that all class members suffered the same injury from common conduct, as the alleged violations involved disparate constitutional claims arising from distinct conduct by different officers at various times and locations⁻. Additionally, the court rejected both the municipal custom theory due to insufficient evidence of a continuing, widespread pattern⁻ and the failure to train theory because the plaintiffs' own expert indicated officers violated existing policies⁻.
On March 30, 2023, the parties stipulated to dismiss claims against Defendant Robert Kroll, and the court ordered a dismissal with prejudice.
Per an ACLU press release, in April 2023, the journalists reached a settlement with the former MPD union head that kept him off the force for ten years.
On September 26, 2023, the court addressed cross motions for summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court granted Sheriff Hutchinson's motion for summary judgment in part, finding qualified immunity applied to claims by three plaintiffs due to a lack of evidence of his direct involvement, but denied it for other claims due to genuine disputes regarding his knowledge and command role⁻. The court denied the City Defendants' motion entirely, finding sufficient evidence to support Monell liability through a pattern of unconstitutional conduct and deliberate indifference⁻.
The following day, the defendant filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
On October 12, 2023, the appellees, Communication Workers of America, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and on October 27, 2023, the court denied this motion.
On October 13, 2023, the court denied the defendant's request to reconsider the order denying the motion for summary judgment.
On November 16, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss claims against Sheriff Hutchinson.
In the appellate court, on November 20, 2023, the journalist appellees filed a motion for stay. On December 8, 2023, the motion was denied. On the same day, the parties filed opposing briefs and shortly after, reply briefs, in preparation for oral arguments, which were set for May 9, 2024.
In December 2023, Judge Wilhelmina Wright retired, and this case was reassigned to Judge Jeffrey Bryan, who recused himself, and the case was reassigned to Judge John R. Tunheim.
In February 2024, the parties reached a settlement agreement that divided $950,000 between the lead plaintiff, seven other journalists attacked by police, and the Communications Workers of America. Following this, on April 16, 2024, the court entered a stipulation of dismissal of the City of Minneapolis.
On May 9, 2024, the parties' oral argument was held by the Eighth Circuit.
The parties continued to brief on the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice individual capacity claims against Sheriff Hutchinson. On July 11, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss with prejudice because it lacked jurisdiction over the matter, due to the issue being on appeal. The court noted that it will grant the motion if the Eighth Circuit remands the case.
On July 30, 2024, the Eighth Circuit released a per curiam opinion that remanded the case to the district court for the limited purpose of ruling on the appellees' motion to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice individual capacity claims against the Sheriff. The court noted that it retained jurisdiction over the appeal during the limited remand.
On August 1, 2024, the court granted the plaintiffs' voluntary motion to dismiss claims against Sheriff Hutchinson.
The next day, the case was resubmitted, and on August 21, 2024, the Eighth Circuit released another per curiam opinion that dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In doing so, the court reasoned that because the only claims remaining were the official capacity claims, nominally against Hutchinson, but actually against Hennepin County, the court has a "special obligation" to satisfy themselves that they actually possess authority to decide this case. The court noted that "while this court may exercise jurisdiction inextricably intertwined with qualified immunity claims, in this case there are no longer any qualified immunity claims." Due to this, the Eighth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to decide the claims and dismissed the appeal.
On March 4, 2025, the district court entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice, having been advised that the parties had entered into a settlement agreement. The contents of that settlement are unknown.
As of March 2026, this case is closed.
Summary Authors
Jack Hibbard (8/4/2020)
Justin Hill (9/3/2021)
Jordan Katz (4/8/2022)
Alex Jarecki (3/21/2024)
Haleigh Knowles (3/28/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17218182/parties/goyette-v-city-of-minneapolis/
Carwinski, Timothy R. (Minnesota)
Chambers, Caitlin Anne (Minnesota)
Dougherty, Rachel (Minnesota)
Beck, Kevin M (Minnesota)
Duren, Rebecca L (Minnesota)
Carwinski, Timothy R. (Minnesota)
Chambers, Caitlin Anne (Minnesota)
Hamilton, Steven D. (Minnesota)
Harris, Jacob Patsch (Minnesota)
Marcus, Jonathan L. (Minnesota)
McAdam, Emily Muirhead (Minnesota)
Nascimento, Isabella Salomao (Minnesota)
Robinson, Frederick (Minnesota)
Schanfield, Karen Gotsdiner (Minnesota)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17218182/goyette-v-city-of-minneapolis/
Last updated March 29, 2026, 9:19 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 2, 2020
Closing Date: Sept. 26, 2025
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs are two journalists and the Communications Workers of America (CWA).
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Denied
Defendants
City
City of Minneapolis
Minneapolis Chief of Police
Minneapolis Police Lieutenant
State
Minnesota Public Safety Commissioner
Minnesota State Patrol Colonel
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Unreasonable search and seizure
Other Dockets:
District of Minnesota 0:20-cv-01302
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 23-03190
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: $950,000
Order Duration: 2022 - 2028
Issues
General/Misc.:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Over/Unlawful Detention (facilities)
Policing:
Case Summary of Goyette v. Minneapolis, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/17590/ (last updated 3/28/2026).