Hansen v. Westly

Background

Vincent-Anthony Hansen, who represented himself, sued the Minnesota Department of Revenue and Department employees Sara Westly and Daniel Getschel. He alleged that the defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 242, a federal criminal statute, and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when the Department levied $35,123.37 from his bank account to collect outstanding Minnesota state tax liabilities. Hansen sought damages equal to one hundred times the amount taken.

The opinion states that Hansen did not file Minnesota income tax returns for 2016 through 2019. After giving him notice, the Commissioner of the Department of Revenue prepared and filed returns on his behalf. The Department then sent notices of taxes owed, and after Hansen did not pay, it levied his bank account.

Motion and response

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked legal authority to hear the case. They alternatively moved under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Hansen did not respond within the deadline or afterward. The court said this failure constituted a waiver and that the motion could be granted on that basis. The court nevertheless addressed subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court considered filings from a related state tax case to the extent they reflected facts that were not reasonably disputed, because those filings were public records.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 242 does not create a private right of action. In other words, that criminal statute allows prosecution by the United States but does not authorize an individual to bring a civil damages lawsuit. A claim under that statute therefore could not provide federal-question jurisdiction.

The court also addressed sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. It held that the Minnesota Department of Revenue, as a state agency, was immune from Hansen’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act damages claim. The court found no allegation that Minnesota had consented to the suit, and concluded that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act did not eliminate the state’s immunity.

The court further held that Westly and Getschel were presumed to have been sued in their official capacities because the complaint did not specify otherwise. A damages suit against state employees in their official capacities is treated as a suit against the state. The court found no applicable exception because Hansen sought only damages, not prospective injunctive or declaratory relief, and alleged no facts suggesting that the employees acted outside their official duties.

Disposition

The court concluded that Hansen’s complaint did not plausibly allege a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. It granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed without prejudice the action. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.