Kiewel v. Hickok

Background

James Douglas Kiewel, representing himself, sued Scott Hickok and the City of Fridley. Kiewel alleged that the City lacked authority to require him to apply for a rental license before renting a residence he owned in Fridley. The magistrate judge recommended granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice, and denying Kiewel’s motion to compel as moot.

After the response period for objections ended, Kiewel also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. District Judge Ann D. Montgomery reviewed Kiewel’s objections to the recommendation.

Court’s reasoning

The court agreed with the recommendation that the amended complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. It held that the public has a sufficient interest in rental housing to justify a municipality’s use of its police power to regulate that housing. The court also agreed that the amended complaint did not state a plausible due process claim.

Kiewel argued that the recommendation failed to address 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The court explained that §§ 1331 and 1343 provide jurisdiction but do not themselves create the claim Kiewel needed to plead. As to § 1985, which addresses conspiracies to deprive people or classes of equal protection of the laws, the court said Kiewel had not alleged that he was treated differently from similarly situated people.

Disposition

The court overruled Kiewel’s objections and adopted the report and recommendation in full. It granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed Kiewel’s amended complaint without prejudice. It denied Kiewel’s motion to compel as moot and denied his motion for judgment on the pleadings as moot. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.