Young v. Walls
Dominic Young and Princeton Young v. Alexander Walls, Moshe Davis, Michael Wegner, Jeremy Riley, Davis Mueller, David Mathes, and City of Minneapolis
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:25-cv-01693
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Young v. Walls, Judge Magnuson granted Defendant Alexander Walls's motion to dismiss, throwing out the assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims with prejudice because they were filed six years after the events occurred — well past the two-year deadline — and dismissing all remaining claims against Walls without prejudice because the plaintiffs failed to serve him within the required 90-day window.
Plaintiffs Dominic Young and Princeton Young, whose claims against Defendant Alexander Walls have been dismissed — some permanently (assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress) and the rest for now (remaining claims). Other defendants named in the case are not directly affected by this ruling.
What happened
In Young v. Walls (Civil No. 25-1693), Dominic Young and Princeton Young sued Minneapolis police officer Alexander Walls and other defendants over events that occurred on April 29, 2019. The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit on April 24, 2025 — nearly six years after those events — and then failed to serve Walls within the 90-day deadline required by federal court rules, ultimately serving him on August 1, 2025, nine days after the deadline passed.
Walls moved to dismiss the case against him on two grounds: (1) that he was not served within the required 90-day period, and (2) that the claims for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress were filed too late under the applicable two-year statute of limitations (the legal deadline for bringing a lawsuit). On the service issue, the plaintiffs argued that Walls had tried to avoid being served, but the court found no facts supporting that claim. The evidence instead showed that the plaintiffs' own attorney had not followed through on contacting the county attorney's office to arrange service. On the time-limit issue, the plaintiffs offered no response or explanation for why they waited six years to sue on claims that had to be brought within two years.
Judge Magnuson granted Walls's motion to dismiss in full. The assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were dismissed with prejudice — meaning they cannot be refiled — because they were brought long after the two-year deadline expired and the plaintiffs gave no reason to extend it. All other claims against Walls were dismissed without prejudice — meaning they could potentially be refiled — because of the failure to serve him on time. A hearing previously scheduled for October 9, 2025, was also canceled.
The detailed version
Case
Dominic Young and Princeton Young v. Alexander Walls, Moshe Davis, Michael Wegner, Jeremy Riley, Davis Mueller, David Mathes, and City of Minneapolis, Civ. No. 25-1693 (PAM/EMB), U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Judge
Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Court Judge.
Date
October 7, 2025.
Background
Plaintiffs Dominic Young and Princeton Young filed their complaint on April 24, 2025, arising from events that allegedly occurred on April 29, 2019. They engaged a process server on May 30, 2025, to serve all defendants. The 90-day deadline for service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) expired on July 23, 2025. The day after the deadline, the process server emailed plaintiffs' counsel indicating she could not locate Walls and believed he was avoiding service, and noted that counsel had previously said he would reach out to the county attorney's office to accept service on Walls's behalf. Walls was ultimately served on August 1, 2025 — nine days after the deadline.
Motion
Defendant Walls moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process, and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, arguing the assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims were time-barred.
Insufficient Service of Process (Rule 12(b)(5))
Rule 4(m) requires service within 90 days of filing or the court must dismiss without prejudice unless the plaintiff shows 'good cause' for the failure, in which case the court must extend the time. Good cause may be shown by evasion of service by the defendant, diligent efforts by the plaintiff, or conduct of a third party such as a process server. The court may also grant a permissive extension for excusable neglect even absent good cause.
The plaintiffs did not argue timely service or excusable neglect. They argued good cause based on Walls allegedly evading service, but provided no supporting facts. The evidence showed the process server was actually waiting on plaintiffs' counsel to contact the county attorney's office — suggesting the delay was attributable to the plaintiffs themselves, not to evasion by Walls. The court found no good cause and dismissed all claims against Walls not otherwise addressed under Rule 12(b)(6), without prejudice, consistent with Rule 4(m).
Statute of Limitations (Rule 12(b)(6))
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (a federal civil rights law allowing suits against government officials), courts apply the relevant state statute of limitations. In Minnesota, intentional personal injury torts — including assault and IIED — are governed by a two-year limitations period under Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1). The cause of action accrues when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action. The underlying events occurred on April 29, 2019. The summons did not issue until April 28, 2025 — six years later, well beyond the two-year window. The plaintiffs offered no response to Walls's limitations argument and provided no reason to toll (pause or extend) the statute of limitations. The court found these claims waived and time-barred.
Ruling:
- Walls's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 12) is GRANTED.
- Plaintiffs' assault and IIED claims against Walls are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (cannot be refiled).
- Plaintiffs' remaining claims against Walls are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (could potentially be refiled, subject to other applicable rules and deadlines).
- The hearing previously scheduled for October 9, 2025, is CANCELED.
Note
The opinion contains a typographical error in the order ('DIMISSED' instead of 'DISMISSED') which appears to be a clerical error in the original text.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.