Mary Amerson v. City of Des Moine, No. 11-1575 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - civil procedure. District court did not err in finding motion to remand removed case was untimely; defendant's summary judgment affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1575 ___________ Mary Amerson, Appellant, v. City of Des Moines, Iowa, Appellee. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: December 2, 2011 Filed: December 7, 2011 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Mary Amerson sued the City of Des Moines in Iowa state court, claiming in part that the City s enforcement of its nuisance ordinances was discriminatory and unconstitutional and that various City officials had caused damage to or the loss of her real estate and vehicles, had committed illegal searches and seizures, had defamed her character, and had conducted an unfair administrative hearing. After the City removed the action to federal court, the district court1 denied Amerson s motion to remand because it was untimely and because Amerson had claimed violations of her federal 1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. constitutional rights. The court later granted the City s motion for summary judgment, denied Amerson s motion to alter or amend judgment, and denied her related motion to strike. She appeals all those rulings. Following careful review, we conclude that the motion to remand was properly denied as untimely, see Graphic Commc ns Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund A v. CVS Caremark Corp., 636 F.3d 971, 974 (8th Cir. 2011), and that the grant of summary judgment was proper, see Rau v. Roberts, 640 F.3d 324, 327 (8th Cir. 2011). We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to alter or amend judgment, see Sipp v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 975, 980-81 (8th Cir. 2011), and no error in the denial of the motion to strike the City s timely response. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
