Greene v. Simpson
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-00703
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 12
In Greene v. Simpson, Judge Tostrud dismissed pro se plaintiffs Kyle and Krystle Greene's lawsuit against ten defendants without prejudice for lack of federal court jurisdiction.
Pro se litigants asserting property and civil-rights claims in federal court who fail to adequately plead either diversity of citizenship or a substantial federal question; attorneys and other defendants named in lawsuits where subject-matter jurisdiction is insufficiently alleged.
What happened
In Greene v. Simpson (No. 25-cv-703), Kyle and Krystle Greene, representing themselves, sued ten defendants — including attorneys, a law firm, a county attorney, and private individuals — over what they describe as unlawful actions connected to their potential eviction from property they claim to own in Meeker County, Minnesota. They sought title to the property, various forms of court relief, damages of $16,800, and the disbarment of two attorney-defendants. Most defendants filed motions asking the court to dismiss the case.
The central question was whether a federal court had the power to hear this case at all. Federal courts can hear cases either because the parties are citizens of different states (called diversity jurisdiction) or because the lawsuit raises a question of federal law (called federal question jurisdiction). The Greenes argued both, but the court found neither applied. On diversity, the court found that at least one defendant — the Jensen & Cross law firm — is incorporated in Minnesota, just like the Greenes, which destroys complete diversity. On federal question jurisdiction, the court found that the Greenes' references to federal law were too vague, conclusory, and unsubstantial to create genuine federal claims — for example, their Equal Protection and conspiracy claims lacked necessary factual support, and some federal provisions they cited create no private right to sue.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud granted all the defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the entire case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the Greenes are not barred from refiling but would need to find a proper court with jurisdiction over their claims. The court also denied the Greenes' motion for sanctions against the county attorney (who had not been properly served) and denied as moot their motion asking the court to take judicial notice of certain facts.
The detailed version
- Greene v. Simpson · No. 0:25-cv-00703
- Eric Tostrud
- Aug. 25, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs Kyle Greene and Krystle Greene, proceeding pro se (without a lawyer), filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against ten defendants: Katherine Simpson; Celeste Simpson; Carmen Simpson Revocable Trust; Brian Cross; Larry Jensen; Thomton, Sperry, Jensen & Keithahn, Ltd.; Jenny Adams; "The Shadow Man"; Jensen & Cross, Ltd.; and Brandi Schiefelbein (Meeker County Attorney). The Greenes allege that defendants engaged in unlawful actions related to eviction proceedings concerning property the Greenes claim to own in Meeker County, Minnesota.
In their Amended Complaint, the Greenes sought: title to the disputed property; declaratory and injunctive relief; sanctions against all defendants; $16,800 in damages; litigation costs; disbarment of two attorney-defendants for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act; and other equitable relief.
Motions Filed
Eight of the ten defendants filed motions to dismiss: Brian Cross, Larry Jensen, and Jensen & Cross, Ltd. (ECF Nos. 4, 36); Jenny Adams and "The Shadow Man" (ECF No. 10); and Katherine Simpson, Celeste Simpson, and the Carmen Simpson Revocable Trust (ECF No. 24). The Thomton law firm did not appear; the court noted that Jensen & Cross, Ltd. represented it was formerly known as Thomton, Sperry, Jensen & Keithahn, Ltd. County Attorney Schiefelbein asserted she had not been properly served, and the docket confirmed no proof of service.
The Greenes also filed a Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 64) against County Attorney Schiefelbein for allegedly failing to appear, and a Second Motion to Take Judicial Notice (ECF No. 45).
Legal Standard
The moving defendants challenged subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) through a "facial" attack — meaning they accepted the Amended Complaint's allegations as true but argued those allegations were insufficient on their face to establish jurisdiction. Under a facial attack, the court reviews only the pleadings and materials necessarily embraced by them, affording the plaintiff the same protections as under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion (failure to state a claim). The burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction rests on the plaintiff — here, the Greenes.
Analysis: Diversity Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332(a))
Diversity jurisdiction requires "complete diversity," meaning no plaintiff and no defendant can share state citizenship. The Greenes alleged they are Minnesota citizens. They properly alleged that Katherine Simpson is an Illinois citizen and Celeste Simpson is a Colorado citizen, but failed to adequately allege the citizenship of any other defendant. For individuals, citizenship requires allegation of a "permanent home," not merely a business address. For corporations, citizenship is determined by state of incorporation and principal place of business. For unincorporated entities, citizenship is determined by the citizenship of all members.
The Greenes alleged only business addresses for the remaining defendants. More decisively, a public record showed that Jensen & Cross, Ltd. is incorporated under Minnesota law, making it a Minnesota citizen — the same state as the Greenes. One non-diverse defendant is enough to defeat complete diversity. Diversity jurisdiction was therefore absent.
Analysis: Federal Question Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331)
Federal question jurisdiction exists when a plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint presents a claim arising under federal law or when the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law. If the asserted federal basis is "patently meritless," dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is appropriate.
The court identified seven causes of action in the Amended Complaint:
Claims arising solely under Minnesota law
Three claims — a homestead exemption claim, a burglary and trespassing claim, and an abuse of process claim — cited only Minnesota statutes and cases. Minnesota statutes cannot independently create federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Full Faith and Credit Clause
The Greenes invoked this constitutional provision, but neither the Clause nor its implementing statute (28 U.S.C. § 1738) creates a private right of action. Moreover, the Amended Complaint did not describe how any defendant could have violated it.
Equal Protection claim against County Attorney Schiefelbein
The Greenes alleged she refused to act on a letter Kyle Greene sent, which they characterized as a criminal complaint. The Amended Complaint cited only Minnesota statutes governing county attorney duties and failed to allege that the Greenes were treated differently from a similarly situated comparator — the core requirement of an equal protection claim. The federal case quoted in the complaint (In re Application of Wood) concerned a federal court's supervisory power over grand juries, which has no bearing on equal protection. No substantial federal question was raised.
Conspiracy claim
The Greenes quoted two federal cases — one involving a § 1983 racial-segregation claim (Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.) and one involving a district attorney's equal protection violation (Myers v. County of Orange) — but the only factual allegation offered was that Meeker County's policy allows property transfers without court orders at the county attorney's direction. The court found no discernible connection between this allegation and the cited federal cases, no identified § 1983 violation, and no identifiable conspiracy. No substantial federal question was raised.
Sanctions claim
The Amended Complaint cited an Eighth Circuit case affirming Rule 11 sanctions, but Rule 11 (which governs attorney and party conduct before courts) provides no independent cause of action and cannot independently create federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court concluded that the Greenes' purported federal claims were not merely implausible but were "so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, [and] plainly unsubstantial," quoting Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974).
Analysis: Supplemental Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367)
Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims when a valid federal claim is already before it. Because no valid federal claim exists here, there is no basis for supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court also noted in a footnote that even if the federal claims had been dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) rather than Rule 12(b)(1), it would have declined supplemental jurisdiction given the case's early stage.
Minnesota Statutes as Jurisdictional Grounds
The Greenes separately cited three Minnesota trust statutes (Minn. Stat. §§ 501C.0202, 501C.0605, and 501C.0706) as grounds for jurisdiction. The court rejected this: state statutes cannot create federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Disposition
Judge Tostrud granted all four motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 4, 10, 24, and 36) and dismissed the entire action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Greenes' Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 64) was denied because County Attorney Schiefelbein had not been properly served. The Greenes' Second Motion to Take Judicial Notice (ECF No. 45) was denied as moot in light of the dismissal. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.