Leonard N. Anderson v. Ed Smith, No. 19-1959 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Kelly, Erickson and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The district court did not err in determining plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a federal claim.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1959 ___________________________ Leonard N. Anderson Plaintiff - Appellant v. Ed Smith, in his individual capacity and his official capacity for his conduct under color of law, in the course and scope of his employment, as a City of St. Paul, Department of Safety Inspections Employee; City of St. Paul, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: June 18, 2020 Filed: July 29, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Leonard Anderson and the City of St. Paul have had a long-running dispute over building-code violations on his property. He eventually sued the City and one of its inspectors in federal court. His amended complaint contained two sets of claims: seven total under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and two more under state law. The district court 1 dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the statelaw claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Reviewing the dismissal de novo and having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, we agree with the district court that Anderson’s amended complaint fails to state a federal claim. See Kelly v. City of Omaha, 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review). We accordingly affirm the judgment.2 See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 We note that the district court’s order states that “Anderson’s state-law claims” are dismissed without prejudice, but the judgment itself omits one: a trespass claim (Claim V). If this is a clerical error, the district court can correct it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). -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.
