United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-3190
                        ___________________________

 Jared Goyette, On behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals;
  Craig Lassig, On behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals;
Communications Workers of America, On behalf of themselves and other similarly
       situated individuals; Tannen Maury; Katie Nelson; Stephen Maturen

                                      Plaintiffs - Appellees

                                  Michael Shum

                                              Plaintiff

                     Edward Ou; Timothy Evans; Chris Tuite

                                      Plaintiffs - Appellees

                                         v.

             John Does, 1-2, in their individual and official capacities

                                              Defendant

David Hutchinson, Hennepin County Sheriff, in his individual and official capacity

                                     Defendant - Appellant

   City of Minneapolis; Medaria Arradondo, Minneapolis Chief of Police, in his
 individual and official capacity; Robert Kroll, Minneapolis Police Lieutenant, in
  his individual and official capacity; John Harrington, Minnesota Department of
   Public Safety Commissioner, in his individual and official capacity; Matthew
  Langer, Minnesota State Patrol Colonel, in his individual and official capacity;
       Joseph Dwyer, Minnesota State Patrol Major, in his individual capacity

                                           Defendants
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                          for the District of Minnesota
                                 ____________

                              Submitted: May 9, 2024
                                Filed: July 30, 2024
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, BENTON and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
                            ____________

PER CURIAM.

        After the May 2020 murder of George Floyd and the April 2021 death of
Daunte Wright, crowds gathered in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Hennepin County
deputy sheriffs, along with state and local law enforcement, responded. Appellees,
eight individuals and one organization, claimed they were detained and injured while
working as journalists during these events. They asserted 

 claims
for violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, civil conspiracy,
and failure to intervene. Hennepin County Sheriff David Hutchinson moved for
summary judgment. The district court denied qualified immunity on most claims
against the Sheriff and permitted official capacity claims to proceed against him.
The Sheriff appeals.

       While the case was on appeal, appellees moved, in the district court, to
voluntarily dismiss their individual capacity claims against the Sheriff. See Mogard
v. City of Milbank, 

 (8th Cir. 2019) (this court may exercise
pendent appellate jurisdiction over claims “inextricably intertwined” with individual
capacity, qualified immunity claims).

      The district court properly noted that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the
pending motion to dismiss. See FutureFuel Chem. Co. v. Lonza, Inc., 

 (8th Cir. 2014), quoting State ex. rel. Nixon v. Coeur D’Alene Tribe, 164 F.3d

                                         -2-
1102, 1106 (8th Cir. 1999) (“Once a notice of appeal is filed, the district court is
divested of jurisdiction over matters on appeal.”).

       The district court issued an indicative ruling that if it had jurisdiction, it would
dismiss the qualified immunity claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(c); Fed. R. App. P.
12.1. Accordingly, we remand this 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. See Foster v. Cerro Gordo Cnty., 

 (8th Cir. 2017) (Rule 12.1 “permits a court of appeals to remand a case for
further proceedings where a district court has made an indicative ruling on a motion
that was filed by a party after a docketed appeal has divested the lower court of
jurisdiction”) (unpublished). This court retains jurisdiction over the appeal during
this limited remand. See 

 (appellate courts may “require such
further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances”). When the
district court has decided the motion on remand, the parties must promptly notify the
circuit clerk.
                         ______________________________




                                           -3-