Devisme v. City of Duluth

Background

Andrew Devisme brought this action against the City of Duluth and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth (HRA). He did not identify a specific federal law or constitutional provision, but referred generally to discrimination, wrongful eviction, civil-rights violations, and race- or ethnicity-based hate crimes. He sought compensation for mental harm, harassment, and the forced relocation of himself and his son.

Devisme alleged that HRA revoked his housing voucher and that the City and others wrongfully evicted him in retaliation for his protests and complaints. Public records submitted by HRA showed that Devisme’s landlord had started a state-court eviction case after notifying him that his lease would end. The state court entered judgment for the landlord after Devisme left the eviction hearing and did not return. The Minnesota Court of Appeals later dismissed his appeal because he did not comply with procedural requirements and court orders.

Devisme also filed a motion seeking a “harassment restraining order,” which the court treated as a request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. He filed three motions seeking to disqualify Judge Wright and several miscellaneous motions. The court had previously restricted his communications and electronic filing privileges after receiving hundreds of improper communications.

Motions to Disqualify

The court denied Devisme’s motions to disqualify Judge Wright. Under federal law, a judge must step aside when impartiality might reasonably be questioned or when the judge has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. The court concluded that Devisme offered no evidence or specific factual allegations showing bias. It also explained that disagreement with judicial rulings ordinarily does not establish bias or justify disqualification.

Preliminary Injunctive Relief

The court denied Devisme’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief. A preliminary injunction is an order intended to prevent immediate, irreparable harm while a case proceeds. The court found no sufficient connection between the alleged harassment or assaults described in Devisme’s motion and the conduct alleged in his complaint. The complaint did not seek injunctive relief or allege that City officials or law-enforcement officers caused the alleged harassment or assaults. The court also found that Devisme had not shown a likelihood of succeeding on the underlying claims, so it did not address the remaining factors for emergency relief.

Motions to Dismiss

The City and HRA moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court explained that a complaint must provide enough factual content to make a claim plausible, although a self-represented litigant’s filings are read liberally.

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss. Devisme did not provide facts connecting the City’s conduct to a civil-rights violation. The court found that the City was not Devisme’s landlord and was not involved in the state-court eviction. Although Devisme alleged that HRA revoked his voucher, he did not allege that the City was responsible for that action. The complaint also did not identify a particular City official or provide facts supporting another civil-rights or discrimination claim against the City.

The court also granted HRA’s motion to dismiss. HRA agreed that it revoked Devisme’s housing voucher, but the complaint did not allege facts showing that the revocation was discriminatory or otherwise unlawful. The court relied on public records showing that Devisme had been evicted after the state court found that he had made numerous and pervasive threats to the landlord’s staff that seriously endangered others. The court stated that federal law required a public housing authority to terminate assistance after a family was evicted for a serious lease violation. Because the eviction resulted from a serious lease violation, the court concluded that Devisme had not plausibly alleged that HRA violated his civil rights by revoking the voucher.

The court also stated that, to the extent Devisme asserted state-law claims, it lacked original jurisdiction because the requirements for diversity jurisdiction were not established.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss and granted HRA’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Devisme’s complaint with prejudice. The court denied Devisme’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief and denied his motions to disqualify Judge Wright. It denied his miscellaneous motions as moot. Judgment was ordered to be entered.