Perkins v. City of Minneapolis

Background

Perkins brought claims against the City of Minneapolis under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for failure to promote, retaliation, and harassment. The City moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), which allows a court to decide a case based on the pleadings after they are closed but early enough not to delay trial.

On January 29, 2025, the court granted the City’s motion. It dismissed the harassment claim with prejudice and dismissed the failure-to-promote and retaliation claims without prejudice. The court gave Perkins, who was representing himself, until February 28, 2025, to file an amended complaint addressing the identified defects. The court warned that it would enter judgment dismissing the case if he did not do so.

Perkins filed a document titled “Affidavit” by the deadline. The court determined that the filing was formatted largely as a brief and repeated arguments responding to the City’s already-decided motion rather than amending the complaint as ordered. The court therefore directed entry of judgment, and judgment was entered on March 7, 2025.

Perkins moved for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b)(1), which permits a court to relieve a party from a judgment because of “excusable neglect.” He argued that his failure to file a proper amended complaint resulted from a good-faith misunderstanding of the procedure and his lack of legal training. He also filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2025. The City opposed relief, arguing that Perkins’s neglect was not excusable and that the proposed amendments would not cure the deficiencies in his claims.

Excusable Neglect

The court considered four factors: possible prejudice to the City, the length and effect of the delay, whether Perkins acted in good faith, and the reason for the delay, including whether it was within his reasonable control.

The first two factors favored Perkins because the case was at an early stage, the danger of prejudice to the City was small, and the delay’s effect on the proceedings would likely be minimal. The court also found that the third factor favored Perkins because nothing in the record showed intentional disregard of the court or bad faith.

The fourth factor—the reason for the delay, which the court called the final and most important factor—weighed heavily against Perkins. The court concluded that the January 29 Order clearly directed him to file an amended complaint. His filing did more than contain a mistaken title: it was styled as a brief, largely repeated earlier arguments, and did little to address the complaint’s deficiencies. The court stated that a mistake of law or failure to follow a clear court rule does not constitute excusable neglect. It also explained that self-represented litigants receive less stringent treatment of their pleadings but still must comply with court orders and procedural rules.

Because the factors favoring Perkins did not outweigh his carelessness and failure to follow the court’s directive, the court held that his neglect could not be excused. It denied the motion for relief from the judgment.

Proposed Amended Complaint

The court separately discussed the proposed amended complaint even though it did not need to reach that issue after denying Rule 60 relief. Under Rule 15, courts generally should allow amendment when justice requires, but amendment may be denied when it would be futile—that is, when the proposed amendment would still not state a valid claim.

As to failure to promote, the court had previously explained that Perkins needed facts showing that a similarly situated person outside his protected group was promoted instead of him. The amended complaint alleged that white men were hired for four positions for which Perkins applied, but it did not allege facts showing that those individuals were otherwise similarly situated to Perkins. The court concluded that the amended complaint still did not state a failure-to-promote claim.

As to retaliation, the court had previously explained that Perkins needed facts connecting his protected conduct, such as reporting harassment to the City’s human-resources department, with the City’s failure to promote him. The amended complaint did not address or cure that deficiency. The court therefore concluded that the proposed amendment would be futile, would not permit further amendment, and would not disturb the judgment.

Disposition

The court ordered that Perkins’s Motion for Relief from Order Dismissing Case, ECF No. 36, was DENIED.