Johnson v. Blackswan Townhomes
- David Doty
- 0:25-cv-02535
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Johnson v. Blackswan Townhomes, Judge Doty dismissed the case without prejudice and denied Johnson’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Trawanda Johnson’s case was dismissed without prejudice, and her application to proceed without paying the filing fee was denied. Blackswan Townhomes, Lara, and Angel were not required to proceed with the action.
What happened
Trawanda Johnson said Blackswan Townhomes and its agents denied her housing because of a 15-year-old felony conviction. She applied to proceed without paying the filing fee, but did not identify a specific legal claim or request particular relief.
The court said the defendants were private parties and Johnson alleged no cooperation with government officials, so they could not be sued under the federal civil-rights law she may have intended to use. The court also said the complaint did not show a constitutional right to housing or to be considered for housing despite an old felony conviction. Any possible state-law claims were also insufficiently identified, and the complaint did not establish federal jurisdiction over them.
Judge David S. Doty dismissed the case without prejudice under the federal screening statute and denied Johnson’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Blackswan Townhomes · No. 0:25-cv-02535
- David Doty
- June 23, 2025
Background
Trawanda Johnson brought the action against Blackswan Townhomes, Lara, and Angel. She alleged that she was denied housing because of a 15-year-old felony conviction. The complaint did not expressly identify a legal cause of action or request specific relief.
Johnson did not pay the filing fee and applied to proceed without paying it. The court found that she qualified financially for that status. However, federal law requires dismissal at this stage if the complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.
Court’s analysis
The court considered whether the complaint stated a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims for constitutional violations by state actors. The court found that the defendants were private actors and that Johnson alleged no facts showing that they acted together with a state official. As a result, the defendants could not be sued under § 1983 for the alleged constitutional violations.
The court further stated that, even if the defendants could be sued under § 1983, the allegations did not support a reasonable conclusion that Johnson’s constitutional rights had been violated. Johnson did not allege a constitutional right to housing or a constitutional right to be considered for housing despite an old felony conviction.
The court also considered possible state-law claims. It found that the complaint did not identify a state-law cause of action or the relief sought. It also did not establish original federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship because Johnson did not allege that more than $75,000 was at stake or that the parties had completely different citizenship. Because the complaint did not state a federal claim, the court said it would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.
Disposition
The court ordered that the matter be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It separately ordered that Johnson’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee be denied. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.