Lufsky v. Flanagan et al

Filing 77

ORDER denying 67 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 68 Motion for emergency injunction; denying 76 Request for Hearing. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 11/22/2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Miranda Lee Lufsky,

No. 24-cv-2530 (KMM/DTS)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

Patrick Flanagan, et al.,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Miranda Lee Lufsky filed this action on June 28, 2024, and filed an
amended complaint on August 6, 2024. The named Defendants are several Washington
County officials, including several Washington County District Court judges; a
Washington County prosecutor, social worker, and guardian ad litem; Washington County
public defenders; the Washington County Sheriff; and several officers of the Forest Lake
Police Department. Ms. Lufsky’s claims arise out of Washington County child-welfare
proceedings involving her two children. In re Welfare of the Children of: Miranda L.
Lufsky, Court File No. 82-JV-23-482 (Washington Cnty. Dist. Ct.).
On September 5, 2024, the Court issued an Order, ECF 47, setting a briefing
schedule on several motions to dismiss filed by groups of the defendants, see Motions at
ECF 22, 30, 36. In that Order, the Court also denied Ms. Lufsky’s motion for summary
judgment as prematurely filed. Briefing on the motions to dismiss has been completed and
the matters are under advisement.

On October 29, 2024, Ms. Lufsky filed two motions: (1) a motion for summary
judgment, ECF 67; and (2) a one-page motion for “emergency injunction,” ECF 68. Since
filing these motions, Ms. Lufsky has called the Court to request an expedited hearing on
the motion for injunctive relief, and at the instruction of the Court’s staff, contacted the
Court by email to make the request for an expedited hearing in writing. Ms. Lufsky has
sent the Court no fewer than fifteen identical emails with the subject line “Expedited
hearing for Emergency Injunction.”
The Court has reviewed Ms. Lufsky’s pending motions for summary judgment and
for an emergency injunction as well as her requests for an expedited hearing. See ECF 76.
Both motions, ECF 67, 68, and the request for a hearing, ECF 76, are denied. The renewed
motion for summary judgment is still premature. No defendant has served or filed an
answer and the Court has before it now several motions to dismiss, which the Court must
address first. The motion for emergency injunction is not accompanied by any supporting
memorandum of law or evidentiary submissions that would form a basis for the Court to
grant preliminary injunctive relief to Ms. Lufsky. Ms. Lufsky’s requests for an expedited
hearing are also denied. The Court is deciding the pending motions to dismiss on the
papers, and no hearing is necessary at this stage.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: November 22, 2024

s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge