Wagner v. Scheirer

Background

Joseph Wagner operates a cow/calf operation and a separate feedlot. Four employees of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulated his feedlot activities. Wagner alleged that the employees improperly treated some of his pastures as feedlots, delayed a modified National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit needed for a planned feedlot expansion, and pursued administrative and court penalties against him.

Wagner alleged that the defendants violated substantive and procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and corresponding provisions of the Minnesota Constitution. He also alleged retaliation under the First Amendment for disputing the agency's authority, challenging its enforcement actions, petitioning the Minnesota legislature, and bringing a court proceeding. Finally, he asserted a Minnesota common-law claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage based on the permit delay. He sought damages from the defendants in their individual capacities.

Motion and standard

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint plausibly states a legal claim. Although the motion initially also cited Rule 12(b)(1), the defendants did not brief a subject-matter-jurisdiction argument, and the court adjudicated the motion only under Rule 12(b)(6). The court accepted the complaint's factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion and considered certain documents embraced by the complaint or available as public records. It excluded a draft stipulation that was neither a public record nor embraced by the complaint.

Substantive due process

The court held that Wagner did not plausibly allege the violation of a fundamental right. The Eighth Circuit had declined to recognize farming as a fundamental right, and Wagner did not identify controlling authority recognizing a fundamental right to freely use and enjoy property in the circumstances alleged. The court also held that the alleged inspections, permit withholding, and possible misinterpretation of regulations did not plausibly constitute conduct that shocks the conscience, meaning especially arbitrary and egregious government action. The substantive-due-process claim therefore failed.

Procedural due process

A procedural-due-process claim requires a protected liberty or property interest and constitutionally inadequate procedures. The court held that the Minnesota and federal rules governing the permit gave the agency substantial discretion to decide whether an applicant would comply with applicable laws and permit conditions. Because the rules did not create a legitimate entitlement to the modified permit, Wagner did not plausibly allege a protected property interest in it.

The court also noted that Wagner alleged no deprivation of his feedlot, land, existing permit, or permit application. In addition, even assuming a protected interest in the modified permit, Wagner had pursued a state-court proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus, and the agency issued the modified permit shortly after that proceeding began. The complaint therefore did not plausibly show that the process provided was constitutionally inadequate.

First Amendment retaliation

To state a First Amendment-retaliation claim, Wagner had to plausibly allege protected activity, adverse action that would deter a person of ordinary firmness, and a causal connection between the activity and the adverse action. The court found the adverse-action element plausible: withholding a permit for more than a year and pursuing a lawsuit seeking more than $150,000 in penalties could deter a person of ordinary firmness.

The court nevertheless found causation inadequately pleaded. Wagner referred to agency documents that he said showed retaliatory motive, but he did not describe their contents. The court treated the allegation that those documents showed retaliation as a legal conclusion rather than factual content permitting a reasonable inference of liability. The timing allegations also did not establish causation. The permit withholding began in May 2017, before Wagner's alleged legislative petitioning in 2019 and his 2018 court action, so those activities could not have caused the earlier withholding. The agency's 2021 lawsuit occurred many months or years after Wagner's alleged protected activities, which the court found too remote to support an inference of retaliation under Eighth Circuit precedent.

The court also noted that a civil-rights conspiracy claim requires an underlying constitutional violation. Because Wagner had not plausibly alleged a constitutional violation, the conspiracy theory failed as well.

State-law claims and disposition

After dismissing all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wagner's Minnesota-law claims. Those claims included the Minnesota constitutional theories and the claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The court stated that the state claims could be litigated in Minnesota state court.

The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. Counts I and II under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were dismissed with prejudice. The claims asserted under Minnesota law were dismissed without prejudice. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.