Anderson v. Smith

Background

Anderson alleged that the City of St. Paul and Smith, a City employee in the Department of Safety and Inspections, violated his rights through enforcement actions involving his property. The opinion discussed three groups of events:

- In 2014, the City issued a correction notice identifying 33 alleged property deficiencies. The City later agreed to extend the compliance period if Anderson listed the property for sale, provided quarterly sale-progress reports, and obtained permits for repairs. - In 2015, Smith and St. Paul police officers went to the property under a summary abatement order directing Anderson to remove tall grass, weeds, and other plant growth. People intervened, and the officials left without performing the abatement. - In 2018, Smith issued another correction notice listing the earlier deficiencies and adding an allegation that a berm on Anderson’s property had eroded onto a neighbor’s property. Anderson filed this lawsuit eight days after the deadline in that notice.

Anderson also challenged a City-run website statement that the property’s interior was “unsafe/uninhabitable.” He alleged that the statement was false and contributed to his inability to sell the property.

Claims and analysis

Anderson brought his constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute that allows claims against state or local officials for violations of federal rights. Claim I alleged procedural due process violations based on the 2018 correction notice and the refusal to extend its deadline. The court concluded that Anderson had not alleged facts showing that the notice, its contents, or the deadline deprived him of a protected property or liberty interest. The court also noted that he did not allege that the City took further action after issuing the notice.

Claim II alleged that Smith selectively enforced the City Code against Anderson while ignoring violations by neighbors, creating a “class-of-one” equal-protection claim. The court concluded that Anderson had not plausibly alleged that he and the neighbors were identical or directly comparable in all material respects. The court pointed to differences in the number and types of alleged violations, the properties’ enforcement histories, and the officials involved. It also concluded that the correction notice involved discretionary decision-making of the type generally not suited to a class-of-one claim.

Claim III was a claim against the City based on the same due-process and equal-protection theories. The court concluded that those underlying claims failed and that Anderson had not identified any City policy, custom, or practice that caused a constitutional violation, as required for this type of claim.

Claim IV alleged that Smith conducted an unreasonable search during the 2015 abatement activity. The court concluded that Anderson had not pleaded facts showing that Smith’s conduct went beyond a constitutionally permissible entry onto the property, proceeding along the driveway, and leaving after objections were raised.

Claims VI and VII alleged that Smith conducted the 2015 activity in retaliation for Anderson’s earlier lawsuit and exercise of speech or access to the courts. The court concluded that Anderson had not plausibly alleged retaliation. In particular, the earlier lawsuit did not name Smith as a defendant, and Anderson did not explain why Smith would have retaliated against him for suing a third party.

Claim VIII alleged constitutional “stigma-plus” defamation based on the website statement. The court declined to dismiss the claim as untimely at that stage because the website’s later updates might have substantively altered or added to the original statement. But the court dismissed the claim on the merits. It held that the alleged inability to sell the property resulted from potential buyers’ decisions rather than direct government action, and therefore did not satisfy the required “plus” component of a stigma-plus claim under the court’s reading of the governing precedent.

Claim V alleged the common-law tort of trespass based on the 2015 activity. Claim IX alleged that the website violated Anderson’s rights under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.

Disposition

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(c). The court granted the motion. All claims except Claim IX were dismissed with prejudice. Claim IX was dismissed without prejudice because, after dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim. The order stated that Anderson could re-file that claim in state court and directed that judgment be entered.