Ball v. Nilsson

Background

Jeannie F. Ball and James A. Nilsson were neighboring property owners in Duluth, Minnesota. Nilsson previously sued Ball in St. Louis County District Court over a property-line dispute. The state trial court ruled in Nilsson’s favor, but the Minnesota Court of Appeals later reversed and remanded that case.

Ball filed this federal case while the state-court matter was continuing. Liberally construing her complaint, the court understood Ball to assert Fifth Amendment substantive due process and takings claims, a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim, and state-law claims for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespass, conversion, and defamation. Both parties were representing themselves.

Nilsson moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Ball failed to state a claim for relief. A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion. Ball objected.

Federal Claims

The court reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation independently. It explained that a complaint must contain enough factual matter to make liability a plausible inference, although allegations in a self-represented complaint must be read liberally.

For the Fifth Amendment claim, the court held that the amendment applies to government action, not merely to conduct by a private person. Ball alleged that Nilsson harassed her in connection with the property dispute, and the opinion noted that Nilsson was employed as a police officer. But Ball did not allege that the conduct occurred while Nilsson was acting as a police officer or otherwise under government authority. The court therefore found no sufficiently close connection between the government and Nilsson’s alleged conduct. It also stated that a dispute between private parties over land does not itself constitute a government taking.

The court reached the same conclusion for the Fourteenth Amendment claim. That amendment protects against government misconduct, but Ball had not alleged specific facts showing that Nilsson acted as a government official. The court held that Ball had not sufficiently pleaded either constitutional claim.

State-Law Claims

After dismissing all of Ball’s federal claims, the court considered whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims that are part of the same case or controversy as federal claims. The court declined to exercise that jurisdiction because judicial economy, convenience, and fairness did not favor keeping the state claims in federal court. It dismissed Ball’s state-law claims without prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Ball’s objections, adopted Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s recommendation in its entirety, and granted Nilsson’s motion to dismiss. The state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered.