Young v. Walls

Background

Plaintiffs Dominic Young and Princeton Young filed their complaint on April 24, 2025, arising from events that allegedly occurred on April 29, 2019 — six years earlier. The defendants include multiple named officers and the City of Minneapolis. Defendant Alexander Walls moved to dismiss all claims against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P.) 12, raising two separate grounds: (1) insufficient service of process under Rule 12(b)(5), and (2) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6), specifically arguing that the assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims were time-barred.

Ground 1: Insufficient Service of Process (Rule 12(b)(5))

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) requires a plaintiff to serve a defendant within 90 days of filing the complaint. If service is not completed in time, the court must either dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. If the plaintiff shows "good cause" for the failure, the court must grant an extension. Even absent good cause, the court has discretion to grant a permissive extension for "excusable neglect."

Here, the 90-day deadline expired on July 23, 2025. Walls was not actually served until August 1, 2025 — nine days late. Plaintiffs argued good cause existed because Walls was evading service, which is a recognized basis for extending the deadline under Eighth Circuit precedent (citing Peer v. Vilsack and Kurka v. Iowa County). However, the court found that the plaintiffs provided no facts supporting evasion. To the contrary, documentary evidence showed that the process server was waiting on plaintiffs' counsel to contact the County Attorney's office about accepting service on Walls's behalf — indicating the delay was attributable to plaintiffs, not to Walls.

The court also noted that plaintiffs did not argue excusable neglect as an alternative. Finding no good cause and no excusable neglect argument, the court dismissed the remaining claims against Walls without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(5), consistent with the directive in Rule 4(m). Although Walls requested dismissal with prejudice on this ground, the court declined, instead applying the without-prejudice default prescribed by Rule 4(m).

Ground 2: Failure to State a Claim — Statute of Limitations (Rule 12(b)(6))

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges whether the complaint's allegations, accepted as true, state a legally valid claim. Here, Walls argued that the assault and IIED claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations (the legal deadline by which a lawsuit must be filed).

For claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the federal civil rights statute used to sue state and local officials for constitutional violations), courts borrow the relevant state limitations period. Under Minnesota law, intentional personal injury torts — including assault, battery, and IIED — carry a two-year statute of limitations (Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1)). A § 1983 claim accrues when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action — generally, when the harm occurs.

The underlying events occurred on April 29, 2019. The summons in this case did not issue until April 28, 2025 — six years later, four years beyond the two-year deadline. Plaintiffs did not respond to this argument and offered no basis to toll (pause or extend) the limitations period. The court found that plaintiffs had waived any counterargument by failing to respond, and granted dismissal of the assault and IIED claims against Walls with prejudice, meaning those specific claims against Walls cannot be refiled.

Disposition

The court granted Walls's motion in its entirety: - The assault and IIED claims against Walls are dismissed with prejudice. - All remaining claims against Walls are dismissed without prejudice. - A previously scheduled hearing for October 9, 2025, was canceled.

The case continues as to the other named defendants.