Lindsey v. Department of Human Services
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-03299
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Lindsey v. Department of Human Services, Magistrate Judge Docherty denied three motions filed by pro se plaintiff Dale Allen Lindsey as procedurally deficient.
Pro se civil litigants, particularly those with in forma pauperis (fee-waiver) status who wish to conduct discovery such as depositions or subpoenas in federal court in Minnesota. This order clarifies that IFP status does not cover all litigation costs and that procedural rules apply equally to self-represented parties.
What happened
In Lindsey v. Department of Human Services (No. 23-CV-3299), pro se plaintiff Dale Allen Lindsey filed three motions: one asking to proceed without prepaying court fees, one seeking subpoena forms and witness expenses, and one seeking permission to conduct a deposition with document production from all defendants. He also asked that any costs be covered by his existing fee-waiver status.
The court found that the fee-waiver application was unnecessary because the court had already granted that relief earlier in the case. As for the two discovery-related motions, the court found them procedurally improper and too vague to act on — neither was accompanied by the required legal memorandum, a meet-and-confer statement, or any citation to legal authority, as required by federal and local court rules. The court also noted that even if the filings were treated as discovery requests rather than motions, they would still be improper because court rules prohibit filing discovery requests before they are used in a proceeding.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty denied the fee-waiver application as moot and denied the two discovery-related motions without prejudice, meaning Lindsey may refile them if he corrects the procedural deficiencies. The court warned Lindsey that, despite representing himself, he must follow the same rules as attorneys, and that repeated improper filings could result in sanctions including dismissal of claims, attorney fee awards, or contempt proceedings.
The detailed version
- Lindsey v. Department of Human Services · No. 0:23-cv-03299
- Katherine Menendez
- Aug. 11, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Dale Allen Lindsey is proceeding pro se (without an attorney) in a civil case against the Minnesota Department of Human Services and others. He had previously been granted in forma pauperis (IFP) status — a fee waiver allowing him to file the lawsuit without paying court fees — earlier in the case. On or around the date of this order, Lindsey filed three new motions.
The Three Motions at Issue
Motion 1 — New IFP Application (Dkt. No. 51)
Lindsey filed a new application to proceed without prepaying fees. This application listed a different case number (25-cv-1299) on its face. The Clerk of Court filed it in this case on the assumption that Lindsey had written the wrong case number, since he is not a party to case 25-cv-1299.
Motion 2 — Subpoena Request (Dkt. No. 52)
Lindsey asked the court to send him subpoena forms for seven named witnesses so they could testify in court, and requested that the witnesses' costs be covered by his existing IFP status.
Motion 3 — Deposition Request (Dkt. No. 53)
Lindsey asked for permission to conduct a "deposition duces tecum" (a deposition at which the deponent is also required to produce documents) of all defendants, again requesting that costs be covered by his IFP status. The court noted this filing referenced Docket No. 52 in its text, suggesting some confusion in the filings.
Court's Analysis
IFP Application
The court denied the IFP application (Dkt. No. 51) as moot. Because the court had already granted IFP status at the outset of the case (Dkt. No. 5), that determination remains valid for the entire duration of the case and does not need to be renewed.
Discovery Motions — Procedural Deficiencies
The court liberally construed Lindsey's two remaining filings as motions (acknowledging they more closely resembled discovery requests) but denied both on procedural grounds.
First, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b)(1), which requires that any request for a court order be made by motion stating with particularity the grounds for the requested relief. Neither filing was accompanied by a supporting memorandum of law, cited any legal authority, or provided the specificity needed for the court to understand or grant the requested relief.
Second, the court found that neither filing complied with District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1, which governs civil motions in this district. Specifically, neither included a required Meet and Confer Statement (a document showing that the parties tried to resolve the dispute before bringing it to the court) or the other supporting documents required by Local Rule 7.1(b) and (c).
Third, the court noted in a footnote that even if the filings were treated as discovery requests rather than motions, they would still be improper. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(1)(A) prohibits filing discovery requests with the court unless they are being used in a proceeding or the court has specifically ordered their filing — neither of which had occurred here. The court stated it would strike them if construed that way, so Lindsey faces no prejudice from the court's choice to treat them as motions instead.
Warning to Plaintiff
The court issued a direct warning to Lindsey: although he is representing himself, he is held to the same procedural rules as attorneys. Failure to follow those rules — including filing frivolous or unauthorized motions — can result in sanctions such as dismissal of claims, an award of attorney fees and costs to the opposing party, and contempt proceedings. The court also clarified that IFP status waives the initial court filing fee but does not eliminate all costs of litigation.
The court provided Lindsey with references to publicly available resources, including the subpoena form available from the Clerk's Office and the District's Pro Se Civil Guidebook.
Disposition
- Dkt. No. 51 (IFP Application): DENIED as moot. - Dkt. Nos. 52 and 53 (Discovery Motions): DENIED without prejudice, meaning Lindsey may refile properly if he corrects the procedural deficiencies identified by the court.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.