Sinclair v. Benysek
KeAnn D.R. Sinclair v. Kristina Benysek, and The Minnesota Emergency Medical Services Regulatory Board
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-03880
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Sinclair v. Benysek, Judge Menendez dismissed all claims against the Minnesota Office of Emergency Medical Services without prejudice, finding it immune from suit and not properly named as a wrongdoer.
Pro se plaintiffs bringing civil rights suits under § 1983 against state agencies in Minnesota, and parents asserting constitutional claims related to custody or familial interference by government-connected actors.
What happened
In Sinclair v. Benysek and the Minnesota Emergency Medical Services Regulatory Board (now the Office of Emergency Medical Services, or OEMS), pro se plaintiff KeAnn D.R. Sinclair sued under federal civil rights law (42 U.S.C. § 1983) after a November 1, 2024 traffic stop during which an Emergency Medical Services provider briefly took custody of her minor son before Ms. Sinclair arrived and picked him up. She claimed violations of her due process and parental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, a Fourth Amendment violation, and several Minnesota state law claims.
OEMS moved to dismiss the complaint. Ms. Sinclair did not file a response. The court found three independent reasons to dismiss all claims against OEMS: (1) as a state agency, OEMS is shielded from federal lawsuits by the Eleventh Amendment (sovereign immunity), which Congress has not overridden through § 1983 and which Minnesota has not waived; (2) even setting aside immunity, the complaint contained no specific facts about any action or failure by OEMS itself; and (3) with no surviving federal claims, the court declined to keep jurisdiction over the related Minnesota state law claims.
Judge Katherine Menendez granted OEMS's motion to dismiss. All federal claims against OEMS were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and all state law claims against OEMS were also dismissed without prejudice. The case is not fully over: defendant Kristina Benysek has not been served, and Ms. Sinclair was ordered to explain in writing by March 11, 2026, why service has not been completed, with that issue referred to Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz.
The detailed version
- Sinclair v. Benysek · No. 0:25-cv-03880
- Katherine Menendez
- Feb. 25, 2026
Background
Plaintiff KeAnn D.R. Sinclair, proceeding without a lawyer (pro se), filed this civil rights lawsuit arising from a November 1, 2024 traffic stop. The vehicle stopped was driven by Ms. Sinclair's mother, Kenya Sinclair, who had Ms. Sinclair's minor son, Xavier R.J. F., as a passenger. Defendant Kristina Benysek, an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) provider, arrived at the scene and allegedly took custody of Xavier. Ms. Sinclair's mother repeatedly tried to provide contact information for Ms. Sinclair's brother so Xavier could be returned, but Ms. Benysek allegedly refused and said she only needed the child's name. Ms. Sinclair called her mother's phone, which the state trooper answered; because Ms. Sinclair was nearby, she arrived and retrieved her son shortly afterward.
Ms. Sinclair named as defendants Kristina Benysek and the Minnesota Emergency Medical Services Regulatory Board. OEMS explained in its motion that, effective January 1, 2025, that Board's responsibilities were transferred to the Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS) under 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 127, art. 63, § 21 and Minn. Stat. § 15.039, and that OEMS brought its motion on behalf of both the named defendant and itself.
Claims Asserted
Ms. Sinclair brought the following claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (a federal statute allowing lawsuits for civil rights violations by government actors): - Substantive and procedural due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment, including interference with familial rights - A Fourth Amendment claim for refusal to return her child
She also asserted Minnesota state law claims: - Deprivation of parental rights under Minn. Stat. § 609.26 - Failure to report maltreatment of minors under Minn. Stat. § 626.556 - Negligence
Procedural Posture
OEMS filed its motion to dismiss on December 19, 2025. Ms. Sinclair did not respond to the motion. On January 7, 2026, she filed a motion to alter or amend judgment, which the court denied because no judgment had been entered in the case.
Legal Standard
The court applied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard (dismissal for failure to state a claim), which requires a complaint to contain enough facts to make a claim for relief plausible on its face. The court also applied Rule 12(b)(1) principles (dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) given the sovereign immunity analysis. Because Ms. Sinclair is pro se, her complaint was construed liberally.
Grounds for Dismissal of Claims Against OEMS
1. Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity
The Eleventh Amendment bars individuals from suing a state in federal court. Suing a state agency is treated the same as suing the state itself. Congress can override this immunity by express legislation, or a state can consent to suit, but neither has occurred here: § 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity (Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1988)), and Minnesota has not consented to federal suit. OEMS is established as a Minnesota state agency under Minn. Stat. § 144E.011, subd. 1. The court noted that the Ex Parte Young doctrine — which can allow prospective (forward-looking) injunctive relief against individual state officials even when the state itself is immune — did not apply, because OEMS is not a state official and Ms. Benysek was not alleged to be one.
Because sovereign immunity deprives the court of subject-matter jurisdiction, the federal claims against OEMS were dismissed without prejudice.
2. Failure to Allege Conduct by OEMS
The court found an independent reason to dismiss: even if immunity did not apply, the complaint contained no specific factual allegations about what OEMS did or failed to do. A § 1983 plaintiff must allege facts showing what each defendant did that violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights. The complaint alleged only that OEMS is the governing agency responsible for regulating and training EMS providers — not that OEMS itself took any action causing the alleged constitutional violations. The court also noted that OEMS, as a state entity, is not a "person" within the meaning of § 1983.
3. Dismissal of State Law Claims
With no surviving federal claims, the court addressed its supplemental jurisdiction (the authority to hear related state law claims alongside federal ones under 28 U.S.C. § 1367). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), when all federal claims are dismissed, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims. The court did so, dismissing the state law claims against OEMS without prejudice.
Disposition
- OEMS's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 13): GRANTED - Federal claims against OEMS: DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction - State law claims against OEMS: DISMISSED without prejudice (court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction)
Remaining Defendant: Kristina Benysek
The court noted that there is no indication in the record that defendant Kristina Benysek has been served with the summons and complaint. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), a plaintiff must complete service within 90 days of filing the complaint. The complaint was filed October 8, 2025, and that deadline has passed. The court ordered Ms. Sinclair to show cause in writing by March 11, 2026, explaining why Ms. Benysek has not been served. Further proceedings on service were referred to United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.