Lindsey v. Department of Human Services
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-03299
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Lindsey v. Department of Human Services, Judge Menendez dismissed Dale Allen Lindsey's complaint with prejudice, finding his claims were barred by res judicata based on a prior final judgment.
Individuals who have previously litigated claims in federal court and attempt to bring similar or identical claims in a subsequent lawsuit; the ruling illustrates that a prior final judgment can bar refiling of comparable claims under the doctrine of res judicata.
What happened
In Lindsey v. Department of Human Services (No. 23-cv-3299), Dale Allen Lindsey sued the Minnesota Department of Human Services and other defendants. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case because Lindsey had already litigated similar claims in a prior federal lawsuit that ended in a final judgment, meaning the legal doctrine of res judicata — which bars a party from relitigating claims already decided — prevented him from bringing them again.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation on July 22, 2026, advising that Lindsey's complaint be dismissed and that two pending motions — Lindsey's motion to exclude expert witness testimony and the defendants' motion for summary judgment — both be denied as moot. Lindsey did not file any objections to the recommendation within the required 14-day period, so the court reviewed it only for clear error.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez found no clear error and accepted the recommendation with one modification: because the defendants had raised res judicata in their motion for summary judgment, she granted that motion in part rather than simply denying it as moot. Lindsey's complaint was dismissed with prejudice, his motion to exclude expert witness testimony was denied as moot, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted in part.
The detailed version
- Lindsey v. Department of Human Services · No. 0:23-cv-03299
- Katherine Menendez
- Aug. 14, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Dale Allen Lindsey filed a complaint against the Department of Human Services and other defendants. The opinion does not describe the specific substance of Lindsey's claims, but it references a prior federal case — Lindsey v. Kneisel, No. 22-cv-413 (NEB/DJF), 2023 WL 386730 (D. Minn. Jan. 6, 2023) — as the basis for preclusion.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on July 22, 2026. He concluded that Lindsey's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata (claim preclusion), which prevents a party from relitigating claims that were already decided in a prior lawsuit that reached a final judgment. Judge Docherty recommended: (1) dismissal of Lindsey's complaint; (2) denial of Lindsey's Motion to Exclude Expert Witness Testimony as moot; and (3) denial of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as moot.
Plaintiff's Failure to Object
Lindsey did not file timely objections to the R&R within the 14-day deadline set by District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), nor did he file objections in the week following the deadline. When no objections are filed, the district court reviews an R&R only for clear error — a deferential standard under which the court will accept the magistrate judge's recommendation unless it is plainly wrong.
The Court's Ruling
Judge Menendez found no clear error in Judge Docherty's R&R and largely accepted it. The court departed from the R&R on one point: because the defendants had raised res judicata in their Motion for Summary Judgment (at pages 20–23 of their filing), Judge Menendez determined it was appropriate to grant that motion in part as part of the dismissal, rather than denying it as moot as the R&R had recommended.
Disposition of Each Motion
- Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 116): Accepted as modified. - Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 100): Granted in part. - Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. 1): Dismissed with prejudice. - Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Expert Witness Testimony (Dkt. 90): Denied as moot.
A dismissal with prejudice means Lindsey cannot refile these claims in federal court. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.