Patrick v. State of Minnesota

Background

Patrick filed the lawsuit after a Carver County probate court established procedures for evaluating claims by people who claimed to be heirs of Prince Rogers Nelson and for conducting later genetic testing. Patrick alleged that the probate court’s procedures were inconsistent with state law because the court denied him genetic testing. He also alleged violations of procedural due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Minnesota’s Motion to Dismiss

Minnesota argued that sovereign immunity barred Patrick’s claims. Sovereign immunity generally prevents a state from being sued in federal court unless the state consents or Congress removes that protection. The court concluded that Minnesota had not consented to federal lawsuits involving the probate court’s procedures or paternity determinations, and Patrick had not identified authority showing otherwise.

Because sovereign immunity deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction—the court’s power to hear the case—the court did not address Minnesota’s alternative arguments. The court granted Minnesota’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Patrick’s claims against Minnesota without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Service on the Other Defendants

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) generally requires a defendant to be served within 90 days after the complaint is filed. After Patrick filed the case, a magistrate judge twice ordered him to complete and return forms needed for service by the U.S. Marshals Service. Patrick did not complete the forms for Comerica Bank & Trust, Fredrickson & Byron Law Firm, or Bremer Bank & Trust.

The court concluded that these defendants were not served within 90 days. It therefore dismissed Patrick’s claims against Comerica Bank & Trust, Fredrickson & Byron Law Firm, and Bremer Bank & Trust without prejudice for failure to complete timely service, as required by Rule 4(m).

Disposition

The court granted Minnesota’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the claims against Minnesota without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the claims against the three unserved defendants without prejudice for failure to effect timely service. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.