Vega v. Minnesota DEED Commissioner

Background

Pablito Vega, Jr. filed the action on January 17, 2023, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and naming “Minnesota DEED Commissioner” as the only defendant. The court determined that the complaint sued the Commissioner only in the Commissioner’s official capacity. Under the court’s cited authority, an official-capacity suit is treated as a suit against the official’s office and is no different from a suit against the State itself.

The parties disputed whether Vega properly served the summons and complaint. They addressed service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j)(2), and the court did the same for purposes of resolving the dispute. The court noted that it did not need to decide whether service should instead be governed by Rule 4(e), because Vega had not shown effective service under either approach.

Service dispute

Rule 4(j)(2) requires service on a state or state-created governmental organization by delivering the summons and complaint to its chief executive officer or by using the method provided by state law. Under the Minnesota rule discussed by the court, service on the State requires service on the attorney general, a deputy attorney general, or an assistant attorney general. Minnesota’s waiver procedure also requires specified documents and the defendant’s consent to waive service.

Vega’s proofs of service stated that he would send the summons and proof of service to the DEED chief executive officer and counsel by mail. An Assistant Attorney General reported that the documents were received by FedEx at a security desk and later routed to the Assistant Attorney General. The documents did not include a waiver form, and the proof of service did not show that Vega personally served the summons and complaint. The Assistant Attorney General also reported that Attorney General’s Office staff had verified that the pleadings were received only by mail and had not been personally served.

Vega argued that mailing the summons and complaint to the Attorney General’s Office complied with the rules, that he was not permitted to serve the documents himself, that hiring a process server would impose an expense, and that a process server might not be allowed into the facility. He also stated that the FedEx delivery did not include a waiver form because he expected that waiver would be refused.

Court’s reasoning

The court rejected Vega’s reliance on Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 5.02. It explained that Minnesota’s rules distinguish between serving a summons under Rule 4.03 and serving other documents after an action has begun under Rule 5.02. Because Rule 5.02 does not apply to a summons and complaint, Vega had to comply with Federal Rule 4(j)(2) and, if relying on the state-law method, Minnesota Rule 4. The court concluded that Vega’s FedEx delivery and failure to seek a waiver did not constitute proper service.

Disposition

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright ordered Vega to serve the summons and complaint in a manner complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 4.03. The court gave him until April 17, 2023—the end of the federal 90-day service period measured from the January 17 filing date—to complete service or otherwise satisfy Rule 4(m). If he failed to do so, the court stated that it would recommend dismissal for failure to prosecute. In explaining the consequence, the court referred to dismissal without prejudice.