Lindsey v. Department of Human Services
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-03299
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Lindsey v. Department of Human Services, Magistrate Judge Docherty denied plaintiff Dale Allen Lindsey's application to waive filing fees as unnecessary (already granted), and denied without prejudice his two discovery-related motions as too vague and procedurally improper.
Pro se (self-represented) litigants, particularly those with in forma pauperis (fee-waiver) status who may not understand the limits of that status or the procedural requirements for filing motions and conducting discovery in federal court.
What happened
In Lindsey v. Department of Human Services (Case No. 23-CV-3299), plaintiff Dale Allen Lindsey, who is representing himself without a lawyer, filed three requests with the court: a new application to proceed without paying filing fees, a motion to obtain subpoena forms so witnesses could testify in court, and a motion seeking permission to take depositions (formal pre-trial questioning under oath) and obtain documents from all defendants.
The court denied the fee-waiver application as unnecessary because the court had already granted Lindsey permission to proceed without paying fees at the start of the case, and that permission remains in effect for the entire lawsuit. The court also warned Lindsey that fee-waiver status only allows him to file the lawsuit without prepaying the filing fee — it does not cover all costs of litigation.
Magistrate Judge Docherty denied both discovery-related motions without prejudice (meaning Lindsey may refile them if he corrects the problems), finding them too vague to understand and procedurally defective — they lacked the supporting legal memoranda, meet-and-confer statements, and specific legal authority required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the District of Minnesota's local rules. The judge warned Lindsey that, even though he has no attorney, he must follow the same court rules as represented parties, and that repeatedly filing improper motions could result in sanctions, fee awards, or even dismissal of his case.
The detailed version
This order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota addresses three filings by pro se (self-represented) plaintiff Dale Allen Lindsey in his case against the Department of Human Services and other defendants.
Filing 1 — Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees (Dkt. No. 51)
Lindsey filed a second application for in forma pauperis (IFP) status, which allows a litigant to proceed without prepaying court filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The court denied this application as moot because IFP status was already granted at the outset of the case (Dkt. No. 5) and remains valid for the duration of the litigation. The court also noted a clerical issue: the application listed case number 25-cv-1299, a case to which Lindsey is not a party; the Clerk's Office rerouted it to this case on the assumption that Lindsey wrote the wrong number.
Filing 2 — Motion for Subpoena Forms and Witness Costs (Dkt. No. 52)
Lindsey asked the court to send him subpoena forms for seven named witnesses, have those witnesses testify in court, and have the associated witness costs covered by his IFP status. Magistrate Judge Docherty found the request unintelligible and unsupported by any memorandum of law. The court noted that subpoena forms are freely available from the Clerk's Office or the court's website, and reiterated that IFP status does not waive all litigation costs.
Filing 3 — Motion to Conduct Deposition Duces Tecum (Dkt. No. 53)
Lindsey sought permission to conduct a 'deposition duces tecum' (a deposition that also requires the witness to bring specified documents) of all defendants, again asking that costs be covered by his IFP status. The court found this request similarly unintelligible beyond a general request for document access, and lacking the required procedural support.
Legal Standards Applied
The court evaluated both motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b)(1), which requires motions to state with particularity the grounds and relief sought, citing Goad v. Barnhart, No. 00-CV-1899, 2004 WL 234410 (D. Minn. Feb. 4, 2004). The court also found both motions violated District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1, which requires, among other things, a Meet and Confer Statement (confirming the parties discussed the dispute before court involvement) and supporting legal memoranda. The court further noted that, to the extent the filings were discovery requests rather than motions, they would be improper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1)(A), which prohibits filing discovery materials until they are used in a proceeding or ordered filed by the court.
Disposition
(1) IFP application denied as moot; (2) both motions denied without prejudice, meaning Lindsey may refile them if he cures the procedural deficiencies. The court issued a warning that continued filing of frivolous or procedurally improper motions could result in sanctions, including attorneys' fees, costs, or dismissal of claims.
Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty on August 11, 2025.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.