Perry v. City of Waterville

Background

Travis Paul Perry, proceeding without a lawyer (pro se), filed suit against the City of Waterville, Jason Moran (in his official and individual capacities), Teresa Hill (in her official and individual capacities), and the Waterville Zoning Commission. Perry alleged that a city ordinance prohibiting him from operating a cannabis cultivation business in his home garage violated his federal constitutional rights to procedural due process and equal protection under the law. He also claimed that city officials retaliated against him and failed to properly respond to his public-records requests under Minnesota's Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA).

Defendants moved to dismiss all claims. On June 23, 2026, the court granted that motion and dismissed Perry's amended complaint. Judgment in defendants' favor was entered the following day.

Perry's Post-Judgment Motions

Perry then filed two motions: (1) a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a court to alter or amend a judgment, and (2) a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint under Rule 15(a)(2).

The court explained the applicable legal framework. Once final judgment has been entered and the case is closed, the liberal amendment policy of Rule 15 does not apply on its own; a plaintiff must first obtain relief from the judgment under a rule such as Rule 59(e) before any amendment is possible. A Rule 59(e) motion serves the narrow purpose of correcting clear errors of law or fact, or presenting newly discovered evidence — it cannot be used to raise arguments or new legal theories that could have been presented before judgment. However, the court found it unnecessary to decide whether Perry satisfied Rule 59(e) because his proposed second amended complaint was futile — that is, it still would not survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (the standard for whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim).

Analysis of Each Claim

Procedural Due Process

The court had previously dismissed Perry's procedural due process claim because he had not exhausted his available state administrative remedies — specifically, he had never applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) from the City, which would have been the proper channel to seek authorization for his cannabis business.

Perry acknowledged he never applied for a CUP but argued that city officials had redirected him away from that process and toward petitioning the City Council for a legislative change. The court rejected this as implausible because Perry's own exhibits showed that at a March 17, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, which Perry attended, he was told he could apply for a CUP. At that point, Perry was on notice of the proper remedy; instead of pursuing it, he filed this lawsuit. The court also noted it was Perry's own responsibility to learn what steps were needed to comply with the city's land-use laws. Accordingly, the proposed due process claim remained futile.

Equal Protection

Perry's proposed second amended complaint largely repeated the same equal protection allegations that had already been dismissed. Perry argued — as before — that he was the only known cannabis home-occupation applicant in the city and that the city treated cannabis businesses the same as businesses involving explosives and firearms without rational justification. The court found that regardless of how Perry framed the claim (as a facial challenge, an as-applied challenge, or a "class-of-one" theory), the city's differential treatment of cannabis businesses in residential areas has a rational basis as a matter of law — and Perry's revised allegations did not overcome that conclusion.

First Amendment Retaliation

To state a retaliation claim under the First Amendment, a plaintiff must plausibly allege, among other things, a causal link between protected activity and adverse government action. The court had already found Perry's causation allegations insufficient. His proposed second amended complaint again relied on (1) suspicious timing and (2) an email from defendant Jason Moran referring to a "person of interest in town that may try to do something clever" — allegations the court had already found inadequate to establish causation.

Perry also added a new allegation: he sent a letter to the City Council on May 23, 2025, stating his intent to file a federal lawsuit, and the City Council voted to take no action on the letter. Perry argued this inaction was retaliation. The court found this unpersuasive, noting that a government body's decision not to respond to a threat of litigation would not "chill a person of ordinary firmness" from actually filing a lawsuit — and in fact, Perry himself was not chilled, as he filed this action.

State-Law Claim (Minnesota Government Data Practices Act)

Because Perry failed to plead viable federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction (i.e., the authority to hear related state-law claims when federal claims are present) over his MGDPA claim.

Disposition

The court denied Perry's Rule 59(e) Motion and Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 63) in their entirety.