Prouty v. DHS-MSOP employees
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:21-cv-02207
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Prouty v. DHS-MSOP employees, Judge Wright struck the unsigned complaint, dismissed the case without prejudice, and denied pending motions as moot.
Darrell Dean Prouty’s case was dismissed without prejudice; his temporary-restraining-order motions and application to proceed without paying filing fees were denied as moot. The named DHS-MSOP employee defendants were not required to litigate the dismissed case.
What happened
Prouty v. DHS-MSOP employees concerned Darrell Dean Prouty’s claims against employees of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. A magistrate judge told Prouty that his complaint was unsigned and identified other problems with it.
Prouty did not submit a signed pleading. The court treated two later filings, labeled as requests for emergency orders, as requests for relief rather than new complaints because they did not clearly state the court’s authority or the claims being brought.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright struck the complaint under the federal rule requiring papers to be signed and dismissed the case without prejudice. The court denied Prouty’s emergency-order motions and his application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot.
The detailed version
- Prouty v. DHS-MSOP employees · No. 0:21-cv-02207
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Apr. 13, 2022
Background
Darrell Dean Prouty filed this lawsuit on October 6, 2021, against employees of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. On October 29, 2021, Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty informed Prouty that his complaint was unsigned and required him either to sign it or submit a signed amended pleading. The magistrate judge also identified other problems, including Prouty’s lack of a legal right to seek enforcement of criminal statutes.
On November 8 and 9, 2021, Prouty filed two documents docketed as motions for temporary restraining orders, which are requests for immediate court action while a case is pending. Prouty labeled both documents “Complaint.” The court concluded that they were not additional pleadings because they focused on requested relief and did not include a short statement explaining the court’s authority or a direct statement of the claims.
Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) requires a court to strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after the party is notified. Prouty did not file a signed pleading after receiving the magistrate judge’s warning. The court therefore struck his complaint.
The court also stated that dismissal would be warranted even if either November filing were treated as a pleading. It explained that Prouty primarily sought criminal relief, that he could not seek enforcement of criminal laws or prosecution of other people, and that he could not bring civil claims based on injuries suffered by other MSOP clients. The court further stated that monetary claims against defendants in their official capacities were barred by sovereign immunity, that Prouty had not identified defendants as being sued in their personal capacities, and that the prospective injunctive relief he sought duplicated relief and claims from another lawsuit in the District of Minnesota, No. 21-cv-1847.
Disposition
The court ordered that Prouty’s complaint be stricken under Rule 11(a). It dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. It denied as moot Prouty’s motions for temporary restraining orders and his application to proceed without paying filing fees. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright ordered judgment entered accordingly.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.