Griffin v. City of Minneapolis
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-01963
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Griffin v. City of Minneapolis, Judge Tostrud dismissed the lawsuit brought by pro se plaintiff Michael L. Griffin, Sr. against the City of Minneapolis without prejudice because Griffin failed to properly serve the City under Minnesota law, meaning he can refile his case in state court.
Pro se plaintiffs who file lawsuits against Minnesota municipalities and must ensure they serve the mayor or city clerk — not just any city office employee — to properly initiate legal proceedings. Also relevant to anyone whose case is removed from state court to federal court and faces a challenge to pre-removal service of process.
What happened
In Griffin v. City of Minneapolis (File No. 25-cv-1963), Michael L. Griffin, Sr., representing himself, sued his former employer, the City of Minneapolis, claiming wrongful termination, race discrimination, and retaliation under state employment laws. Griffin originally filed in Minnesota state court, but the City removed the case to federal court. Griffin's lawsuit included claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, a state whistleblower statute, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The City moved to dismiss both the original and amended complaints, arguing among other things that Griffin never properly served the City with legal notice of the lawsuit.
The central issue was whether Griffin properly served the City. Under Minnesota law, a city must be served by delivering the complaint to the mayor (as chief executive officer) or to the city clerk. Minnesota courts require strict compliance with this rule. Griffin instead delivered a copy of his original complaint to an unnamed employee at the Minneapolis City Attorney's Office. Griffin argued that because he is self-represented and the City had actual knowledge of the lawsuit, his service should be considered sufficient. The court rejected this argument, noting that Minnesota law makes clear that actual notice does not substitute for proper service. As for the amended complaint, because the original complaint was never properly served, the relaxed rules for serving later documents did not apply, and Griffin had to meet the stricter requirements for initial service — which he did not do.
Judge Tostrud granted the City's motions to dismiss both the original and amended complaints for insufficient service of process, and dismissed the entire case without prejudice — meaning Griffin is not permanently barred from bringing his claims again. The court also denied Griffin's motion to send the case back to state court as no longer necessary to decide, since the dismissal already effectively returns Griffin to square one. Judge Tostrud noted that Griffin may file a new lawsuit in Minnesota state court if he chooses to do so.
The detailed version
Case: Griffin v. City of Minneapolis, File No. 25-cv-1963 (ECT/ECW), U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. Judge: Eric C. Tostrud. Decision dated: October 1, 2025.
Background
Pro se (self-represented) plaintiff Michael L. Griffin, Sr. filed suit in Minnesota state court against the City of Minneapolis, his former employer. His original complaint alleged wrongful termination, race discrimination, and retaliation under 'federal and state employment laws.' After the City removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, Griffin filed an Amended Complaint asserting claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Stat. § 363A.01 et seq.), a whistleblower claim under Minn. Stat. § 181.932, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Griffin also moved to remand (send back) the case to state court.
Service of Process Issue
The City moved to dismiss both complaints under Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. Service of process is the formal delivery of legal papers notifying a defendant of a lawsuit. Without proper service, a federal court lacks jurisdiction (legal authority) over the defendant — even if the defendant has actual knowledge of the lawsuit.
Because the case was originally filed in state court, sufficiency of pre-removal service was governed by Minnesota law. Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 4.03(e)(2) requires service on a city to be made on 'the chief executive officer' (here, the Mayor) or 'the clerk' of the city. Minnesota courts, including the Minnesota Supreme Court in Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC, 884 N.W.2d 601 (Minn. 2016), require strict compliance with Rule 4.03.
Griffin conceded that Rule 4.03(e) required service on the Mayor or City Clerk, but argued that delivering the complaint to an unnamed employee at the Minneapolis City Attorney's Office was sufficient because (1) he is pro se and (2) the City had actual notice. The court rejected both arguments. It acknowledged that pro se litigants are entitled to some leniency, but held that proper service requirements cannot be waived on that basis. It further held that under Minnesota law, actual notice is legally irrelevant to whether service was properly effectuated, citing Jaeger.
Amended Complaint Service
Griffin argued that service of the Amended Complaint was proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(E) — the relaxed rule for serving subsequent documents in a pending case — because City counsel had electronic filing access and Griffin mailed a copy. The court rejected this argument, applying the rule from Printed Media Services, Inc. v. Solna Web, Inc., 11 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 1993): where no prior complaint was properly served, the amended complaint must itself be served under the more demanding initial service requirements of Rule 4. Griffin made no claim of having attempted such service.
Ruling:
- City's motion to dismiss the original complaint (ECF No. 3) — GRANTED for insufficient service of process.
- City's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 44) — GRANTED for insufficient service of process.
- Griffin's motion to remand (ECF No. 7) — DENIED AS MOOT (rendered unnecessary by the dismissal).
- The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE — meaning Griffin is not barred from refiling his claims. The court expressly noted that Griffin may commence a new action in Minnesota state court.
The court did not reach the merits of Griffin's employment, discrimination, or whistleblower claims.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.