Carlone v. City of St. Paul

Background

Patrick A. Carlone alleged that he had acquired rights to a stretch of land titled to the City of St. Paul through adverse possession, meaning use of another’s property under circumstances that can sometimes lead to legal ownership. He alleged that he had used the land for many decades as a walkway to the nearby Mississippi River. After the city sought to remove him, Carlone filed this action seeking an injunction preventing his removal. He also applied to proceed in the case without paying filing fees.

The opinion questioned whether Carlone qualified financially for that status. His application reported limited assets or income, but he acknowledged that a limited liability company seemingly controlled by him had offered the city $1,300 for the land, had made improvements to it, and planned commercial activity there. The court noted that Carlone had not explained the apparent discrepancy.

Jurisdiction and Screening

The court explained that an application to proceed without paying filing fees may be denied and the action dismissed when the complaint fails to state a legally sufficient claim. Although complaints filed without a lawyer are read generously, they still must allege enough facts to make the requested relief plausible.

The court found the basis for federal jurisdiction unclear. Carlone referred to a “Federal Land Grab Act,” but the court stated that the statute did not appear to exist. The court characterized the dispute otherwise as a state-law property dispute. It stated that state law governs such disputes and that federal jurisdiction would require complete diversity of citizenship, which Carlone had not alleged.

The court also considered whether Carlone might be attempting to allege that the city had taken private property without compensation. It concluded that such a claim required plausible allegations that Carlone actually had a legal interest in the property. Minnesota law, according to the opinion, generally does not permit acquiring adverse title against the government. The court noted a possible equitable exception involving unusual circumstances but concluded that Carlone’s alleged facts did not fit that exception. It further stated that occasional, non-rivalrous walkway use did not satisfy the requirements for adverse possession or a prescriptive easement.

Recommendation and Effect

Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau recommended that the matter be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), that Carlone’s application to proceed without paying filing fees be denied, and that his motion for an injunction be denied.

The document was a report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court. It stated that the parties could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served. The opinion text does not state the District Court’s later action on the recommendation.