Case: Walker v. Barnett
4:20-cv-04059 | U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota
Filed Date: 2020
Clearinghouse coding in progress
Case Summary
Plaintiff started circulating petition to be on ballot for US Senate, but because of Covid-19, social distancing recommendations, and lack of alternative ways to circulate the petition by the Secretary of State and unknown federal employees, he filed a pro se civil suit against the US, the unknown federal employees, two state employees (the Secretary of State and Department of Labor) in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota (Southern Division). Plaintiff additionally states that the Department of Labor delayed his workers compensation payment and treatment, adding to his inability to be placed on the ballot. Plaintiff requests federal injunction for his name to be placed on the ballot, $1M+ for loss of income, and a "declared emergency."
The Court screened the plaintiff's complaint and allowed only the claims for injunctive relief against the defendants to move forward and be served. The defendants move to dismiss the complaint, which the plaintiff opposed. The plaintiff also filed a motion for form 95 reconsideration, three motions for entry of default and a motion for liberal construction. The defendants opposed the plaintiff's motions for entry of default and moved for an extension of time to file their answer or responsive pleading. Judge Karen E Schreier granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and denied the motion for an extension of time, and denied the plaintiff's outstanding motions.
The Court stated that while pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, pro se litigants are not excused from failing to comply with substantive and procedural law. As the plaintiff was seeking relief from the defendants in their official capacities, the rules regarding serving a state government would apply. To serve the defendants under the laws of South Dakota, the plaintiff would have had to either serve a copy of the summons and complaint on the governor of South Dakota or serve the South Dakota Attorney General by sending him a copy of the summons and complaint by certified mail. Instead of doing so, the plaintiff served the defendants at their offices. Thus, the defendants were not properly served, and the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for improper service.
Regarding the motion for liberal construction, the Court notes that it construes the plaintiff's pleadings, as with all pro se plaintiffs' pleadings, liberally, regardless of whether a specific motion for liberal construction is made. Thus, the plaintiff's motion was denied as moot.
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17026217/parties/walker-v-barnett/
Schreier, Karen E (South Dakota)
Farris, Holly R. (South Dakota)
Mines-Bailey, Ana F. (South Dakota)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17026217/walker-v-barnett/
Last updated April 11, 2026, 4:59 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Healthy Elections COVID litigation tracker
Key Dates
Filing Date: 2020
Case Details
Other Dockets:
District of South Dakota 4:20-cv-04059
Case Summary of Walker v. Barnett, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/18043/.