Wagner v. City of Le Sueur
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:25-cv-03998
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Wagner v. City of Le Sueur, Judge Provinzino allowed Wagner's property-taking lawsuit to proceed but paused it while related state criminal cases are pending.
Individuals who own property adjacent to public construction projects and believe the government has encroached on their land without compensation, particularly where related state criminal charges are also pending. Also relevant to self-represented (pro se) litigants seeking to file federal civil rights claims while state criminal proceedings involving the same facts are ongoing.
What happened
In Wagner v. City of Le Sueur, No. 25-cv-3998, William F. Wagner sued the City of Le Sueur, Minnesota, claiming that the city placed a public sidewalk on his private property without compensating him, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The lawsuit arose from a dispute over a construction project in front of Wagner's home in June 2025, during which Wagner allegedly interfered with workers, leading to two ongoing state misdemeanor criminal cases against him. Wagner asked to proceed without paying court fees, a request the court reviewed before allowing the case to move forward.
The court found that Wagner's complaint was sufficient to survive early screening — his allegation that the city placed a sidewalk on his property without payment plausibly describes an unconstitutional taking of property. However, the court also recognized that the central legal question — whether the city had a valid legal right to use that portion of Wagner's property — is already being litigated in the two ongoing state criminal cases. Wagner himself has already raised the same property-rights argument in those state proceedings.
Judge Provinzino granted Wagner's request to proceed without paying court fees and ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the City of Le Sueur. At the same time, Judge Provinzino stayed (paused) the federal case under a legal doctrine called Younger abstinence, which requires federal courts to step back when a parallel state criminal proceeding is ongoing, implicates important state interests, and provides a fair opportunity to raise the same federal legal questions. The case will remain paused until both state criminal cases conclude, at which point the city must notify the court of the outcomes within seven days.
The detailed version
- Wagner v. City of Le Sueur · No. 0:25-cv-03998
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Oct. 31, 2025
Background
On October 17, 2025, Plaintiff William F. Wagner filed a pro se (self-represented) complaint against the City of Le Sueur, Minnesota, alleging that the city placed a public sidewalk on his private property without compensation, in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment (which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation) and the Fourteenth Amendment. Wagner sought removal of the sidewalk, monetary damages, and removal of what he called "frivolous citations."
Wagner also applied to proceed in forma pauperis — that is, without prepaying court filing fees — which triggered mandatory early screening of his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) before the defendant could be served.
The court took judicial notice of two parallel state criminal proceedings against Wagner: State v. Wagner, No. 40-CR-25-496 (Minn. Dist. Ct.) (the "496 case"), charging him with misdemeanor disorderly conduct stemming from a June 9, 2025 incident; and State v. Wagner, No. 40-CR-25-575 (Minn. Dist. Ct.) (the "575 case"), charging him with public nuisance by interfering with a right of way and a right-of-way violation stemming from a June 24, 2025 incident. Both cases arose from Wagner allegedly interfering with construction work that the City of Le Sueur hired contractors to perform in front of his property to update underground utilities. Wagner had already filed answers in both state cases asserting that the city lacked a valid right of way and that its construction constituted an unconstitutional taking.
Wagner filed this federal lawsuit along with four related lawsuits between October 17 and October 20, 2025, all relating to the same underlying dispute.
IFP Screening and Sufficiency of the Complaint
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a court must dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The court applied the standard from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences in Wagner's favor, and liberally construed his pro se filings.
The court found that Wagner's allegation — that the city placed a public sidewalk on his property without compensating him — plausibly states a Takings Clause claim. Citing Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. 180 (2019), and Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 601 U.S. 267 (2024), the court concluded that placing a public sidewalk on private property plausibly constitutes a per se (automatic) taking by interfering with the owner's right to exclude others. Accordingly, the court granted Wagner's IFP application and ordered service on the City of Le Sueur.
Younger Abstention and Stay of Proceedings
Despite finding the complaint sufficient, the court stayed the federal case under the doctrine of Younger abstention, derived from Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under this doctrine, a federal court must refrain from exercising jurisdiction when a parallel state criminal proceeding is pending, in deference to principles of comity (mutual respect between court systems) and federalism.
The Eighth Circuit requires three conditions for Younger abstention to apply: (1) there is an ongoing state proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to raise any relevant federal questions in the state proceeding. Plouffe v. Ligon, 606 F.3d 890, 892 (8th Cir. 2010).
The court found all three conditions satisfied:
First condition
The two state criminal proceedings remain ongoing and are parallel to this federal case because both involve the central question of whether Le Sueur had a legally adequate interest in the property — the same issue that would resolve Wagner's federal takings claim.
Second condition
Criminal prosecutions are described as "the paradigmatic type of state-court proceeding" in which important state interests require abstention.
Third condition
Wagner already has raised his federal property-rights argument in both state cases, confirming he has an adequate opportunity to litigate that question in the state forum.
Because all three conditions were met, the court stayed the case for the duration of the pending state criminal proceedings.
Orders
The court:
- Granted Wagner's IFP application.
- Directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve process on the City of Le Sueur.
- Stayed the entire action pending resolution of both state criminal cases.
- Tolled (paused) all deadlines for the city to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint during the stay.
- Directed the city to notify the court within seven days of the entry of judgment in both state cases (whichever concludes later), in a letter not to exceed two pages.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.