Griffin v. City of Minneapolis

Background

Pro se plaintiff Michael L. Griffin, Sr. filed this lawsuit in Minnesota state court against the City of Minneapolis, his former employer. His original complaint asserted claims under "federal and state employment laws" for wrongful termination, race discrimination, and retaliation for engaging in a protected activity. On April 3, 2025, Griffin delivered a copy of the original complaint to an unnamed employee at the Minneapolis City Attorney's Office.

The City removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. In response, Griffin filed an Amended Complaint asserting claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Stat. § 363A.01 et seq.), a whistleblower claim under Minn. Stat. § 181.932, and a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Griffin also moved to remand (send back) the case to state court. The City then moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Rule 12 for lack of personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, for insufficient process, and for insufficient service of process.

Legal Standards

Service of Process Generally

Service of process — the formal procedure by which a plaintiff officially notifies a defendant of a lawsuit — is a prerequisite to a court exercising power over a defendant. Under longstanding federal case law, a court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a defendant who has not been properly served, even if that defendant had actual notice of the lawsuit. A defendant who was improperly served may move to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5). To survive such a motion, the plaintiff must identify sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that the defendant was properly served.

State Law Governs Pre-Removal Service

When a case is removed from state court to federal court and the adequacy of pre-removal service is challenged, the federal court applies the service-of-process rules of the state where the case was originally filed — here, Minnesota. Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 4.03(e)(2) requires that service on a defendant city be made on "the chief executive officer or to the clerk" of that city. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that Rule 4.03 mandates strict compliance with its terms, and that actual notice of the action is irrelevant to whether service was effective.

Analysis

Original Complaint: Defective Service

Griffin conceded that Minnesota law required him to serve the Mayor (as the City's chief executive officer) or the City Clerk, but argued that serving an unnamed individual at the City Attorney's Office was sufficient because he is pro se and the City had actual notice of the lawsuit. The court rejected both arguments. It acknowledged that pro se litigants are entitled to certain leniencies, but held that the requirements for proper service cannot be ignored merely because a plaintiff is unrepresented. Under Minnesota law, service on the City Attorney's Office does not satisfy Rule 4.03(e)(2), and actual notice cannot substitute for proper service. Service of the original complaint was therefore ineffective.

Amended Complaint: Also Defective

Griffin argued that service of the Amended Complaint was sufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(E) — a rule that generally allows service of documents on a represented party through their counsel's electronic filing access, supplemented by mailing. However, the court held that Rule 5 applies only to documents served after the initial complaint has been properly served. Because the original complaint was never properly served, Rule 4 — the more demanding rule governing initial service of process — continued to govern service of the Amended Complaint as well. Griffin did not claim to have attempted service of the Amended Complaint in compliance with Rule 4. Accordingly, service of the Amended Complaint was also defective.

Remand Motion

Griffin's motion to remand the case to Minnesota state court was denied as moot, because the dismissal of both complaints on service grounds resolved the case regardless of which court held jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court granted both of the City's motions to dismiss — as to the original complaint and the Amended Complaint — for insufficient service of process. Griffin's motion to remand was denied as moot. The action was dismissed without prejudice. The court explicitly noted that Griffin may commence a new action in Minnesota state court and that nothing in the decision is intended to deprive him of that ability.