Peche v. Minnesota Department of Transportation

Background

Rudy A. Peche, III brought this lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Transportation and AFSCME. The order states that Peche’s amended complaint and accompanying exhibits raised claims involving a possible Equal Employment Opportunity Commission right-to-sue letter, but it did not decide whether those claims were timely or meritorious.

Rulings

- The court granted Peche’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. - Peche was ordered to complete and return a U.S. Marshals Service Form 285 for each defendant by April 15, 2024. The court stated that if he did not do so, it would recommend dismissing the matter without prejudice for failure to prosecute. - After receiving the completed forms, the clerk was directed to seek a waiver of service from AFSCME under Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. - The U.S. Marshals Service was directed to serve the Minnesota Department of Transportation under Rule 4(j). The order also states that a defendant who does not return a service waiver without good cause may be required to pay the later costs of service. - Peche’s February 7, 2024 motion to amend was denied as moot because he had already submitted an amended complaint on March 13, 2024. The March 13 amended complaint became the operative pleading. - Peche’s motion to deny all defendants’ motions was denied as moot because the defendants had not filed motions or otherwise participated in the case. - Peche’s self-styled motion filed January 2, 2024 was denied because the requested relief was outside the court’s authority. - Peche’s motion to appoint counsel was denied without prejudice. The court said it was not yet clear whether the claims were filed within 90 days after an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission right-to-sue letter. The court also stated that the amended complaint had survived its initial review and that there was not yet anything for appointed counsel to assist with while the parties awaited defendants’ responses. The court said it would reconsider the request if circumstances required.

Effect of the Order

This was a procedural order. It addressed fee status, service, pleadings, and requests for relief, but it did not decide the underlying claims. The order was signed by Dulce J. Foster, United States Magistrate Judge.