Devisme v. Center City Housing Company

Background

Andrew Devisme filed the complaint for himself and his minor son, Anthony. The defendants were identified as “Center City Housing Company,” which the court understood to mean Center City Housing Corporation, and the Duluth Minnesota Police Department, which the court construed as the Duluth Police Department. Andrew alleged that he and Anthony had lived at Memorial Park Apartments in Duluth. He said he complained more than 60 times during April and May 2021 about neglected or dangerous conditions, clogged sinks, and broken windows, but that Center City’s site manager and director ignored the complaints.

Andrew also alleged that the Duluth Police Department engaged in “police misconduct” involving Anthony. He suggested that he had told police officers about assaults, hospital reports, and threats, but that the Department ignored those reports. The complaint did not identify particular statutes or constitutional provisions. It listed “civil right protest, police misconduct, discrimination, emotional distress, mental anguish, [and] harassment” and requested “justice for a now homeless sick kid” and unspecified relief for mental illness.

The court noted that Andrew had filed two earlier related cases in the District of Minnesota involving overlapping housing and apartment-condition allegations. The court also noted that one earlier case had been dismissed with prejudice and was on appeal, while the other had been dismissed and had not been appealed. The court did not rely on the attached documents because the complaint did not explain how they related to the claims and their relationship was not obvious.

Legal standards and analysis

Because Andrew applied to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, the court was required to dismiss the action if it failed to state a claim for relief. A complaint states a claim only when its factual allegations, accepted as true, plausibly show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Courts read filings by people without lawyers generously, but those filings still must provide enough facts to support the asserted claims. The court also explained that it must dismiss an action at any time if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal power to hear the case.

The court first addressed Andrew’s claims on Anthony’s behalf. A nonlawyer parent cannot litigate in federal court for a minor child. Because Andrew is not a lawyer, Anthony’s claims in this action were dismissed without prejudice.

The court then considered Andrew’s claims. It found that the complaint provided little or no detail about the alleged police misconduct or harassment. It also found that the allegations did not support civil-rights or discrimination claims. The complaint did not allege that Andrew belonged to a protected class or provide facts supporting a comparable “class of one” equal-protection claim.

The court treated emotional distress and mental anguish as possible types of damages rather than federal causes of action. It determined that any remaining claims about the condition or maintenance of the apartment arose under state law. Because Andrew had not stated a federal claim giving the court original jurisdiction, the court could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims. The court also noted that although the complaint alleged citizenship that might satisfy the different-state requirement for diversity jurisdiction, Andrew did not allege the required amount in controversy or otherwise assert diversity jurisdiction.

Ruling

Judge Eric C. Tostrud ordered that Andrew and Anthony’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice. The dismissal covered Anthony’s claims because Andrew could not represent him, Andrew’s claims based on civil-rights protest, police misconduct, discrimination, and harassment because they failed to state a claim, and any state-law claims because the court lacked jurisdiction over them. The court denied the application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot because the case was dismissed.

The court did not impose filing restrictions in this order. It warned, however, that further duplicative litigation—particularly litigation that ignored legal problems previously explained to Andrew—could lead to restrictions requiring him to obtain counsel or approval from a judicial officer before filing new lawsuits in the district.