Jackson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Background

Deidre Sherell Jackson sued the Minnesota Department of Human Services under Title VII, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation. Jackson represented herself. She initially served DHS with a summons but did not provide a copy of the complaint. The court previously determined that this service was ineffective, gave Jackson 14 days to properly serve an amended complaint, and warned that failure to comply could lead to dismissal.

On the final day of that period, Jackson emailed the amended complaint to an email address established by the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office for electronic service during the COVID-19 pandemic. Jackson sent the email herself. DHS moved to dismiss, arguing that service was ineffective because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2) requires service by a person who is at least 18 years old and is not a party to the case. DHS also argued that the amended complaint should be dismissed without prejudice because Jackson lacked good cause for another opportunity to serve it.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that a party may not serve a summons and complaint. That restriction applies regardless of the method used, including email. Because Jackson personally emailed the amended complaint, her service was ineffective.

More than 90 days had passed without effective service. Under Rule 4(m), the court could dismiss the action without prejudice or extend the time for service. The court noted factors favoring dismissal, including Jackson’s prior awareness of the service rule and the fact that she had already received one extension. But because Jackson attempted service during the permitted period, dismissal would create unnecessary delay and expense.

Disposition

Judge Eric C. Tostrud denied DHS’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint without prejudice. The court ordered Jackson to properly serve DHS with the amended complaint within seven days of the order. The order states that failure to do so will result in dismissal of the case without prejudice. The court did not address DHS’s separate arguments that some claims were time-barred or that claims seeking relief against the State of Minnesota should be dismissed.