Jackson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:20-cv-00749
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Jackson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Judge Tostrud granted in part and denied in part DHS’s dismissal motion and denied its motion to strike.
Jackson must file and serve an amended complaint within 14 days, including all intended factual allegations in separately numbered paragraphs. DHS receives the clarified pleading and proper service required to respond. The court did not dismiss the case or resolve the underlying discrimination and retaliation claims in this order.
What happened
Deidre Sherell Jackson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services concerns Jackson’s claims that her employer discriminated and retaliated against her because of her race and color under Title VII, a federal employment law. Jackson represented herself.
The court found that Jackson had emailed DHS a summons but had not served a copy of her complaint, so service was insufficient. Instead of dismissing the case, the court gave Jackson 14 days to file and serve an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to include all factual allegations in separately numbered paragraphs and clarify which allegations were part of her claims.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud granted in part and denied in part DHS’s motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement, and denied DHS’s motion to strike Jackson’s second response. The court did not decide whether Jackson’s discrimination and retaliation claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · No. 0:20-cv-00749
- Katherine Menendez
- Aug. 7, 2020
Background
Deidre Sherell Jackson, representing herself, sued her employer, the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS). She alleged that DHS discriminated and retaliated against her because of her race and color, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. DHS moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process and failure to state a claim. In the alternative, DHS asked for a more definite statement because it was unclear whether allegations in an earlier unsigned complaint were part of Jackson’s operative complaint, and because those allegations were not in numbered paragraphs. DHS also separately moved to strike Jackson’s second response to the dismissal motion.
Service of Process
Jackson emailed a summons to the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office. DHS did not challenge email as the method of service under the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. DHS argued, and submitted evidence, that Jackson had not served a copy of the complaint with the summons. The court concluded that Jackson had not provided evidence showing that service was sufficient. More than 90 days had passed since the case was filed.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the court could dismiss the action without prejudice or allow more time to complete service. The court chose not to dismiss the case at that point. Instead, it gave Jackson 14 days from the date of the order to file and serve an amended complaint on DHS. The opinion stated that failing to comply could lead to dismissal.
More Definite Statement
The court granted DHS’s request for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). That rule allows a party to seek clarification when a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. The court found it unclear whether the allegations attached to the unsigned complaint were part of Jackson’s operative complaint and found that the lack of numbered paragraphs made it harder for DHS to respond.
The court therefore required the amended complaint to include all factual allegations Jackson intended to assert in separately numbered paragraphs. The court did not decide the merits of Jackson’s Title VII discrimination or retaliation claims.
Order
The court ordered that DHS’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for a More Definite Statement was GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Jackson had 14 days to file with the court and serve on DHS an amended complaint containing all intended factual allegations in separately numbered paragraphs. DHS’s Motion to Strike was DENIED.
Judge
The opinion was signed by Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.