Smith v. Winston

Background

Bishop Harding Smith sued Mayor Winston, the City of Brooklyn Park, and the Brooklyn Park City Council. Smith alleged that Winston publicly accused him of corruption, theft, misuse of funds, making threats, and demeaning others. Smith also alleged that speakers at a City Council meeting accused him of misappropriating grant funds, and that city officials failed to correct or disclaim those statements. He alleged that the defendants interfered with contracts involving him and Minnesota Acts Now, a violence-prevention nonprofit of which he was president, and improperly disseminated government data about him.

The complaint asserted five counts: defamation per se; violation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act; malfeasance in office; violations of due process under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions; and violations of the Brooklyn Park City Charter and City Ethics Code. Smith sought $350,000 in compensatory damages, punitive damages, litigation costs, and an injunction requiring the defendants to retract and remove the allegedly defamatory statements.

Motion and Legal Standard

The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judgment on the pleadings is a procedure for deciding a case based on the pleadings when there is no material factual dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The recommendation explained that this motion is evaluated under the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Under that standard, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true but does not accept conclusory statements or legal conclusions without supporting facts.

Analysis

City Council. The recommendation concluded that the City Council was a department or subdivision of the City of Brooklyn Park, not a separate legal entity authorized by state law or the city charter to sue or be sued. It therefore recommended dismissing the City Council from the action.

Defamation. The recommendation concluded that Minnesota’s two-year limitations period barred Smith’s defamation claim. The latest alleged defamatory event identified in the complaint occurred at the May 22, 2023 City Council meeting, while Smith commenced the action on October 21, 2025. The recommendation also stated that the complaint did not allege defamation after May 2023 and did not identify the allegedly defamatory statements with sufficient specificity, but it relied on the limitations period as the basis for dismissal.

Government data. The recommendation concluded that the complaint provided no factual allegations showing what protected or inaccurate government data was disclosed, to whom it was disclosed, or how the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act applied. The claim consisted only of a conclusory assertion that the defendants disseminated false and misleading government data. The recommendation therefore found that the claim did not meet the pleading requirement.

Malfeasance and city rules. The recommendation concluded that the Minnesota malfeasance statute, the Brooklyn Park City Charter, and the City Ethics Code did not expressly or by clear implication create a private civil cause of action. Because those authorities provided other enforcement mechanisms, including removal, criminal penalties, administrative penalties, or discipline, the recommendation found that Smith could not maintain civil claims under them.

Due process. The recommendation treated Smith’s due-process allegations as claims for procedural due process, which generally requires a protected liberty or property interest and a deprivation of that interest without legally adequate procedures. It concluded that Smith had no protected liberty or property interest in renewal of Minnesota Acts Now’s contract or in receiving an explanation for the decision not to renew it. It also concluded that reputational harm alone is not a protected liberty or property interest under the Due Process Clause. The recommendation therefore recommended dismissal of the due-process claim for failure to state a claim.

Recommended Disposition

Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended that the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted and that the matter be dismissed with prejudice. The document is a Report and Recommendation rather than a final order or judgment of the District Court. It states that the parties could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation.