Christopher v. Ramsey Cnty.
| Decision Date | 12 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil 21-2292 (JRT/ECW) |
| Parties | REVEREND TIM CHRISTOPHER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RAMSEY COUNTY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Andrew Stephen Dosdall and Scott M. Flaherty, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, 80 South 8th Street, Suite 2200, Minneapolis MN 55402, for plaintiffs.
David R. Marshall, Leah C. Janus, and Pari McGarraugh, FREDRIKSON & BYRON, PA, 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 for defendant State Agricultural Society.
ORDER GRANTING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
In 2021 the State Agricultural Society (the “Society”) which oversees the Minnesota State Fair, promulgated Rule 1.24 prohibiting fairgoers from carrying firearms on the Fairgrounds during the State Fair. Plaintiffs Reverend Tim Christopher and Sarah Hauptman both obtained tickets for the 2021 Minnesota State Fair, but chose not to attend, or were not allowed to attend, because they refused to do so without their firearms. Christopher, Hauptman, and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought an action in state court against the Society. The Plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus compelling the Society to revoke Rule 1.24 and a declaratory judgment under Minnesota's Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act. They also allege constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a breach of contract claim. Because the Plaintiffs' Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and claim for declaratory judgment are procedurally defective, the Court will grant the Society's Motion to Dismiss those claims. Because the Plaintiffs fail to show that the Society violated their constitutional rights, the Court will grant the Society's Motion to Dismiss the §1983 claim. And because the Plaintiffs cannot establish the illegality of the Rule 1.24, the Court will grant the Society's Motion to Dismiss the Breach of Contract claim.
The Society is a public corporation created by the Minnesota Legislature. (Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 27, 28, Oct. 15, 2021, Docket No. 1-4); See generally Minn Stat. § 37.01 (establishing the Society). The Society manages the Minnesota State Fair and the State Fairgrounds. Id. State law permits the Society to make bylaws, ordinances, and rules “consistent with law which it considers necessary or proper for the government of the fairgrounds and all fairs to be held on them, and for the protection, health, safety, and comfort of the public on the fairgrounds.” Minn. Stat. § 37.16. Violating the Society's rules, bylaws, or ordinances is a misdemeanor. Id.
Prior to the 2021 State Fair, the Society posted on the State Fair website that fairgoers were prohibited from bringing any weapons, including pistols, to the Fair. (Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 78-80.) On August 17, 2021, after the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, the Society officially promulgated Rule 1.24, which denied admission to the Fair to persons possessing personal pistols, even if possessed in compliance with Minnesota law. (Id. at ¶ 40.)
Both Christopher and Hauptman are licensed gun owners who frequently carry their pistols on their persons but did not attend the 2021 State Fair. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-8, 62.) Christopher did not attend the State Fair because he could not bring his firearm with him while Hauptman attempted to attend the State Fair while carrying her firearm but was denied entry. (Id. at ¶¶ 61, 62, 86.)
The Plaintiffs filed suit in state court alleging that the Society, Ramsey County, and the Ramsey County Sheriff, violated their rights by promulgating Rule 1.24 and alleging that the Society violated the Minnesota Data Practices Act. (Compl. Oct. 15, 2021, Docket No. 1-1.)[1] Plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief and a preliminary injunction. (Id.) The state court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. (Decl. of Pari I. McGarraugh, Ex. 27, Oct. 15, 2021, Docket No. 2-27.) The Plaintiffs then filed an Amended Complaint, removing the Data Practices Act allegation and adding a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Am. Compl.) Thereafter, the Defendants removed the action to federal court. (Notice of Removal, Oct. 15, 2021, Docket No. 1.) The Society now moves to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims. (Mot. to Dismiss, Oct. 22, 2021, Docket No. 5.)
In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court considers all facts alleged in the complaint as true to determine if the complaint states a “claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The Court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, drawing all inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Ashley Cnty. v. Pfizer, Inc., 552 F.3d 659, 665 (8th Cir. 2009). Although the Court accepts the complaint's factual allegations as true and construes the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, it is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). In other words, a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations” but must include more “than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements” to meet the plausibility standard. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court generally must ignore materials outside the pleadings, but it may consider some materials that are part of the public record or do not contradict the complaint, as well as materials that are necessarily embraced by the pleadings. Miller v. Redwood Toxicology Lab'y, Inc., 688 F.3d 928, 931 (8th Cir. 2012).
Plaintiffs contend that Minnesota law preempts the Society's ability to promulgate any firearm restrictions. “The Legislature of the state of Minnesota recognizes and declares that the Second Amendment of the Unites States Constitution guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms.” Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 22. The Legislature made it a crime to hold or possess a pistol on or about their person without first obtaining a permit to carry a pistol. Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1. The Legislature further barred any “sheriff, police chief, governmental unit, government official, government employee, or other person or body acting under color of law or governmental authority” from changing, modifying, or supplementing the criteria and procedures to obtain a permit or to limit the exercise of the permit to carry. Id. at subd. 23.
Minnesota has multiple statutes that restrict the authority of certain other governmental institutions from regulating firearms. Pertinent here are Sections 624.717 and 471.633. Section 471.633 reads:
The legislature preempts all authority of a home rule charter or statutory city including a city of the first class, county, town, municipal corporation, or other governmental subdivision, or any of their instrumentalities, to regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by them except that: (a) a governmental subdivision may regulate the discharge of firearms; and (b) a governmental subdivision may adopt regulations identical to state law.
Section 624.717 reads:
Sections 624.711 to 624.716 shall be construed to supersede municipal or county regulation of the carrying or possessing of pistols and the regulation of Saturday night special pistols.
Minn. Stat. § 624.717.
Plaintiffs assert several claims seeking to establish that the Rule 1.24 is invalid because it is preempted and because it is unconstitutional. The Court will grant the Society's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims because they are procedurally invalid and constitutionally unfounded.
“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is available only to compel a duty clearly required by law.” N. States Power Co. v. Minnesota Metro. Council, 684 N.W.2d 485, 491 (Minn. 2004) (cleaned up). Accordingly, to state a claim for mandamus relief, a plaintiff must allege that “the defendant: (1) failed to perform an official duty clearly imposed by law, (2) that, as a result, the [plaintiff] suffered a public wrong specifically injurious to the [plaintiff]; and (3) that there is no other adequate legal remedy.” Id. The Plaintiffs' Petition for a Writ of Mandamus is procedurally improper because it requests the Court to order government officials to refrain from action, whereas mandamus is used to order government officials to take action. State ex re. Sholes v. University of Minnesota, 54 N.W.2d 122, 129 (Minn. 1952) (distinguishing mandamus and injunctive relief). Even viewing the Complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, it contains no factual allegations that support a reasonable inference that there is no other adequate legal remedy-the appropriate legal remedy to prohibit action is injunctive relief.
The Plaintiffs attempt to argue that the distinction between mandamus and injunctive relief is immaterial because the Minnesota Supreme Court has previously granted mandamus to prohibit unlawful official action and modified the relief requested where mandamus was procedurally inappropriate. Sholes, 54 N.W.2d, at 129; Inter Fac. Org. v Carlson, 478 N.W.2d 192, 193 (Minn. 1991). Plaintiffs cite Sholes for the contention that an analysis of the form...
To continue reading
Request your trial