Nelson v. Saint Paul City Council
- John Tunheim
- 0:21-cv-02414
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Nelson v. Saint Paul City Council, Judge Tunheim dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denied Nelson’s fee-waiver application as moot.
Steven Allen Nelson, Sr.’s lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, and his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied as moot. The Saint Paul City Council, Ramsey County Health Department, and Jeanna Weigum were defendants in the dismissed action.
What happened
Nelson v. Saint Paul City Council involved Steven Allen Nelson, Sr.’s challenge to conduct by the Saint Paul City Council, Ramsey County Health Department, and Jeanna Weigum related to menthol cigarettes. Nelson represented himself and said the court had authority based on federal-question and diversity jurisdiction.
The court rejected both bases. It found no diversity jurisdiction because Nelson and the defendants were identified as Minnesota citizens, and it found no federal-question jurisdiction because Nelson did not identify a federal law or constitutional provision creating his claim. The court did not decide the merits of his allegations.
Judge Tunheim dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling, and denied Nelson’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot.
The detailed version
- Nelson v. Saint Paul City Council · No. 0:21-cv-02414
- John Tunheim
- Nov. 29, 2021
Background
Steven Allen Nelson, Sr., who represented himself, sued the Saint Paul City Council, Ramsey County Health Department, and Jeanna Weigum. The court understood Nelson’s complaint to challenge conduct involving menthol cigarettes. Nelson asserted that the court had jurisdiction under both federal-question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The court noted that the complaint contained only two paragraphs of substantive allegations and expressed serious doubts about the merits. It expressly declined to decide whether the allegations were frivolous or failed to state a claim because it resolved the case on jurisdictional grounds.
Jurisdiction
The court first considered diversity jurisdiction. That form of jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity, meaning that each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from the plaintiff. The complaint identified Nelson and all defendants as Minnesota citizens. The court therefore concluded that complete diversity was absent and that it lacked diversity jurisdiction.
The court then considered federal-question jurisdiction. Federal-question jurisdiction applies when a claim arises under the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. The court explained that 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332 are jurisdictional provisions, not laws that create a substantive claim. When asked what federal constitutional, statutory, or treaty right was involved, Nelson pointed only to those jurisdictional statutes. The court also found that the complaint did not directly invoke an applicable federal law or constitutional provision and that it was unclear what federal law governed the suit.
Although the court was required to read a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally, it concluded that liberal construction could not establish federal-question jurisdiction here.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. It also denied Nelson’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs as moot. The court did not reach the merits of Nelson’s allegations.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.