Johnson v. Regional Supplemental Services Inc
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:24-cv-00323
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Johnson v. Regional Supplemental Services, Judge Schiltz dismissed the complaint without prejudice, declined transfer, and denied the fee-waiver application as moot.
William Douglas Johnson, III’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and his application to proceed without paying fees was denied as moot. The defendants were not required to litigate the claims in this action because the case was dismissed.
What happened
In William Douglas Johnson, III v. Regional Supplemental Services, Inc., Johnson was ordered to explain why Minnesota was the proper venue. He did not dispute that the defendants resided in New York and that the events occurred in Alabama, and he asked the court to transfer the case.
The court declined to transfer the case because it was unclear whether New York or Alabama was the proper destination. The court also questioned whether Johnson had alleged enough facts to support a plausible claim that requiring him to sign a federal drug-testing form violated federal regulations.
Judge Patrick J. Schiltz dismissed Johnson’s complaint without prejudice, meaning the case was dismissed but could be filed again. The court declined to transfer the case and denied Johnson’s application to proceed without paying fees as moot.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Regional Supplemental Services Inc · No. 0:24-cv-00323
- Patrick Schiltz
- Mar. 25, 2024
Background
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty ordered Johnson to show why the District of Minnesota was the proper venue. The court explained that federal law generally permits a civil action to be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if no such district exists, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction for the action.
The opinion states that the defendants reside in New York and that the events underlying Johnson’s claim occurred in Alabama. Johnson did not dispute those points and asked the court to transfer the case to the proper federal district court.
Claim and analysis
The court considered whether transfer would serve the interests of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). It concluded that transfer was not appropriate for two reasons. First, the complaint did not make clear whether New York or Alabama was the proper district. Second, the court was not convinced that Johnson had pleaded a plausible claim for relief.
As the court understood Johnson’s claim, he alleged that requiring him to sign a Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form violated 49 C.F.R. § 40.355(a). That regulation prohibits drug-testing companies from requiring employees to sign a consent, release, liability waiver, or indemnification agreement concerning any part of the drug- or alcohol-testing process.
The court found that Johnson did not identify language in the form that amounted to a prohibited release, waiver, or indemnification agreement. Although Johnson submitted the form in response to the show-cause order, he did not provide specific facts explaining how signing it violated the regulation. The court also noted that federal regulations expressly contemplate using this form to document the handling and chain of custody of a urine specimen.
Disposition
The court declined to grant Johnson’s request to transfer the action. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice, allowing Johnson to refile in the proper district in New York or Alabama if he wished. The court also denied Johnson’s application to proceed without paying fees as moot and directed that judgment be entered.
Judge
The order was signed by Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.