Nygard v. Orono, City of

Background

Jay Thomas Nygard sued the City of Orono, Mayor Dennis Sabourin Walsh, Police Chief Correy Farniok, attorneys Soren Mattick and Jared Shepherd, and Campbell Knutson, P.A. The defendants were sued in various individual and official capacities as stated in the caption. Nygard alleged that the defendants worked together to bring fraudulent civil and criminal proceedings against him, prevent him from harvesting wind power, and drive him out of town.

The complaint described disputes and litigation involving wind turbines, a driveway permit, a property-variance application, and other matters. It contained 525 paragraphs and nearly 500 pages of exhibits. The court described it as a confusing and excessively broad kitchen-sink or shotgun pleading. The court noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a short and plain statement of the claim, but it did not need to dismiss the case on that ground alone.

Federal claims and limitations period

The court identified Nygard’s federal claims as claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), First Amendment retaliation, the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and municipal liability under Monell. The court presumed that the constitutional and Monell claims were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which permits certain claims against state or local actors.

The court held that § 1983 claims based on injuries occurring before March 3, 2017, were barred by Minnesota’s six-year limitations period for personal-injury claims. It held that the entire Fourth Amendment claim was barred because the alleged arrest and release from jail occurred in October 2015, and dismissed that claim with prejudice. The court also held that Nygard’s RICO conspiracy claim was barred by RICO’s four-year limitations period because he alleged that he discovered the injury in 2011 and had described the alleged conspiracy in an earlier related proceeding before March 3, 2019.

Earlier proceedings and property variance

For allegations concerning the earlier driveway prosecution, the court applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine prevents a federal district court from reviewing and rejecting a state-court judgment. The court concluded that Nygard’s claims concerning the driveway prosecution challenged the state court’s determination that there was probable cause to prosecute him.

The court applied the Younger abstention doctrine to allegations concerning Orono’s denial of Nygard’s property-variance application. That doctrine generally requires a federal court to refrain from interfering with an ongoing state proceeding when important state interests are involved and the state proceeding provides an adequate opportunity to raise federal issues. The court noted that Nygard did not appeal the variance denial to the state district court, even though Orono’s ordinance provided for such an appeal.

The court also declined to consider new allegations contained in Nygard’s declarations because he had not obtained permission to add them to the complaint. The court stated that those allegations would also have been subject to abstention because they concerned an ongoing state proceeding.

Disposition

The court held that all of Nygard’s federal claims were barred by the statute of limitations, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, or the Younger abstention doctrine. It therefore did not address defendants’ additional arguments based on claim preclusion, immunity doctrines, the rule concerning claims that would undermine a criminal conviction, or failure to state a claim.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims because it dismissed all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction. It dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice. The court granted Campbell Knutson, P.A., Soren Mattick, and Jared Shepherd’s amended motion to dismiss; granted Correy Farniok, the City of Orono, and Dennis Sabourin Walsh’s motion to dismiss; and denied as moot Nygard’s motion to separate a defendant.

The order dismissed Nygard’s § 1983 claims in Counts III, IV, V, and VI and his RICO conspiracy claim in Count II with prejudice. It dismissed the state-law claims in Counts I, VII, VIII, IX, X, and XI without prejudice.