Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02775/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02775-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2775

___________

Mark E. Eiler, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

City of Kandiyohi, Minnesota, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 29, 2010

Filed: April 1, 2010 

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mark E. Eiler appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

and denial of preliminary injunctive relief in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit, alleging that

the City of Kandiyohi (City) violated substantive due process and the Fifth

Amendment’s Just Compensation Clause in purchasing land and an apartment

building from him. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Appellate Case: 09-2775 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2010 Entry ID: 3650591
-2-

Initially, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

finding that the summary judgment motion was ripe for adjudication, because Eiler

did not make the requisite showing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). See

Roark v. City of Hazen, 189 F.3d 758, 762 (8th Cir. 1999). 

We also conclude that the grant of summary judgment was proper. See Johnson

v. City of Shorewood, 360 F.3d 810, 817 (8th Cir. 2004) (de novo review). The court

lacked jurisdiction over the Fifth Amendment claims, because Eiler failed to show that

he had exhausted state remedies, see Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v.

Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 195 (1985) (property owner may not

bring federal claim for violation of Just Compensation Clause until available state

procedure for seeking just compensation is exhausted and compensation has been

denied); Koscielski v. City of Minneapolis, 435 F.3d 898, 903-04 (8th Cir. 2006)

(failure to follow state procedure on taking claim, or to have state court rule on such

claim, makes claim not ripe for federal review); and the Fourteenth Amendment

substantive due process claim fails for lack of evidence that the City behaved

irrationally, see Creason v. City of Washington, 435 F.3d 820, 824 (8th Cir. 2006).

We also find that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to join a new

plaintiff and to add new claims, see Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497

(8th Cir. 2008); or in denying a preliminary injunction, see Safety-Kleen Sys., Inc. v.

Hennkens, 301 F.3d 931, 935 (8th Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, but we modify the

dismissal of Eiler’s Fifth Amendment claims to be without prejudice. We also grant

the City’s motion to strike documents that Eiler offers for the first time on appeal.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2775 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2010 Entry ID: 3650591