Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01378/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01378-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1378

___________________________

Bernard Eggenberger

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

West Albany Township, a Minnesota governmental entity; John W. Moechnig,

West Albany Township City Clerk in his official capacity or his successor

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: December 15, 2015

 Filed: April 21, 2016

____________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

____________

BYE, Circuit Judge.

Bernard Eggenberger alleges violations of his Minnesota and federal

constitutional rights and unlawful retaliation by West Albany Township and its clerk

Appellate Case: 15-1378 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2016 Entry ID: 4390593 
John E. Moechnig (collectively, "the Township"). The district court dismissed the 1

lawsuit and Eggenberger appeals. We affirm.

I

Bernard Eggenberger is a citizen and political activist in West Albany

Township, Minnesota. West Albany Township is a governmental entity in

Minnesota. John E. Moechnig isthe West AlbanyTownship City Clerk and wassued

in his official capacity. Eggenberger attends Township meetings, reviews Township

documents, and pays attention to Township actions. Based on these observations,

Eggenberger has publicized various criticisms of the governance of the Township. 

Eggenberger has published his opinions in the local newspaper and, at least once,

reported an illegal land transfer to a state agency. Eggenberger has brought at least

one lawsuit acting as a private attorney general. The suit was ultimately dismissed

as frivolous, but during litigation Eggenberger sought a subpoena against the

Township, who was a non-party to the lawsuit. The Township did not comply with

the subpoena and instead served on Eggenberger a written objection. The Township

also discussed the possibility ofseeking a restraining order against Eggenberger. The

Township never actually sought a restraining order.

Eggenberger alleges the Township generally allows individuals to view and

copy public information, but the Township targeted Eggenberger specifically and

prevented him from viewing and photocopying the type of documents generally

available to the public.

Based on the above conduct, Eggenberger filed a lawsuit in Minnesota state

court alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The Township removed the

The Honorable Joan Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of 1

Minnesota.

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1378 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2016 Entry ID: 4390593 
action to federal court, and the case proceeded under Eggenberger's First Amended

Complaint. In the First Amended Complaint, Claim I and Claim II allege violations

of the Minnesota Constitution; Claim III alleges a violation of the First Amendment

of the United States Constitution; and ClaimIV and ClaimV allege First Amendment

retaliation claims. The district court dismissed the lawsuit on the pleadings.

II

We review a district court's grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings de

novo. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Johnson, 719 F.3d 1010, 1014 (8th Cir. 2013). 

"We accept astrue all facts pleaded by the non-moving party and grant all reasonable

inferences from the pleadings in favor of the non-moving party." Faibisch v. Univ.

of Minnesota, 304 F.3d 797, 803 (8th Cir. 2002).

A

Eggenberger first argues the Township violated rights found in the Minnesota

Constitution, including Eggenberger's rights to political speech, free speech,

association, and petition. We need not determine whether the Township, by allegedly

denying Eggenberger access to and the ability to photocopy documents, violated the

Minnesota Constitution because it is not self-enforcing and Eggenberger has failed

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

"[T]here is no private cause of action for violations of the Minnesota

Constitution." Guite v. Wright, 976 F. Supp. 866, 871 (D. Minn. 1997), aff'd on other

grounds, 147 F.3d 747 (8th Cir. 1998); see also Mlnarik v. City of Minnetrista, No.

A09-910, 2010 WL 346402 at *1 (Minn. App. Feb. 2, 2010) (explaining "no private

cause of action for a violation of the Minnesota constitution has yet been recognized"

and "[t]herefore appellant's complaint fails to state a claim"); Danforth v. Eling, No.

A10-130, 2010 WL 4068791 at *6 (Minn. App. Oct. 19, 2010) (noting "there is no

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-1378 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/21/2016 Entry ID: 4390593 
private cause of action for violations of the Minnesota Constitution" and plaintiff's

claims were properly dismissed as frivolous). Accordingly, Eggenberger has no

cause of action under the Minnesota Constitution.

Eggenberger argues the lack of a private cause of action for constitutional

violations is of no import because the Minnesota Constitution is enforceable under

Minnesota's Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act ("UDJA"). The UDJA establishes

that "[a]ny person . . . whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a

statute, municipal ordinance, contract, orfranchisemayhave determined any question

of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract,

or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations

thereunder." Minn. Stat. § 555.02 (2016). Eggenberger argues the Township has a

qualifying "municipal rule or regulation" because itsometimes grantsindividuals the

ability to obtain public information. Because Eggenberger believes access to

government information is a common law right and Minnesota Constitution Article

I, Section 8, assures remedies for rights vested at common law, he argues a valid

cause of action exists.

"[A]rticle I, Section 8 of the Minnesota Constitution only assuresremedies for

rights that vested at common law. The purpose of the section is to protect common

law rights and remedies for which the legislature has not provided a reasonable

substitute." Hickman v. Grp. Health Plan, Inc., 396 N.W.2d 10, 14 (Minn. 1986). 

"But article I, section 8, of the Minnesota Constitution is not a separate and

independent source of legal rights on which to base a declaratory-judgment action. 

The Remedies Clause protects and preserves rights and remedies recognized under

the common law." Hoeft v. Hennepin Cty., 754 N.W.2d 717, 726 (Minn. Ct. App.

2008). Therefore, Article I, Section 8 of the Minnesota Constitution can only provide

an avenue to the courts where "there is a vested common-law right." Id. It is

incumbent on Eggenberger to "produce[] evidence ofthisright," id., and he has failed

to do so. Minnesota has never recognized such a right, and, contrary to Eggenberger's

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-1378 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/21/2016 Entry ID: 4390593 
argument, the Township did not "create" a common law right by allowing

Eggenberger and others some access to documents. Accordingly, Eggenberger has

no private right of action under this theory, and the district court properly dismissed

his Minnesota constitutional claims.

B

Eggenberger next argues his First Amendment rights of free speech,

association, and to petition for the redress of grievances were violated. Eggenberger

alleges these violations occurred when the Township denied him access to otherwise

publicly available documents.

The Supreme Court has "never intimated a First Amendment guarantee of a

right of access to all sources of information within government control." Houchins

v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 9 (1978). The First Amendment guarantees a right to

publish information, but not necessarily a right to gain information. Id. at 10 (noting

prior cases "did not remotely imply a constitutional right guaranteeing anyone access

to government information beyond that open to the public generally"); see also Rice

v. Kempker, 374 F.3d 675, 680 (8th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Eggenberger has no

First Amendment right to access information which is not publicly available as a

general matter.

Eggenberger argues the information was, in fact, generally available to the

public, but the Township denied Eggenberger access on a targeted basis. While

Eggenberger's complaint asserts that the Township, as a general rule, allows

individuals some access to documents, he does not allege a different person seeking

the same information would have been given access. Minnesota has not created a

statutory right to access all Township information, and the Township does not have

any rules orregulations which guarantee the right to access all Township information. 

Simply by allowing Eggenberger and other members of the public some access to its

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-1378 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/21/2016 Entry ID: 4390593 
documents, the Township did not create a First Amendment right to access all

information. The First Amendment claim was properly dismissed.

C

Finally, Eggenberger argues the Township twice engaged in unconstitutional

retaliation. First, Eggenberger alleges the Township retaliated against Eggenberger's

reporting activities to other government officials by denying Eggenberger access to

documents. Second, Eggenberger alleges the Township retaliated against

Eggenberger because he sought a subpoena while acting as a private attorney general. 

Eggenberger says the Township retaliated by, instead of replying to the subpoena,

discussing the possibility of imposing a restraining order against Eggenberger.

"To prevail on his First Amendment retaliation claim, [Eggenberger] must

show (1) that he engaged in a constitutionally protected activity; (2) that the

defendant took adverse action against him that would chill a person of ordinary

firmness from continuing in the activity; and (3) that the adverse action was

motivated in part by [Eggenberger]'s exercise of his constitutional rights." Scheffler

v. Molin, 743 F.3d 619, 621 (8th Cir. 2014). "Thisis an objective test: [t]he question

is not whether the plaintiff [him]self was deterred, though how plaintiff acted might

be evidence of what a reasonable person would have done." Id.

Eggenberger first alleges the Township retaliated against his reporting

activities by denying him access to information. Because Eggenberger has not

demonstrated a constitutional right to access the information, there was no chilling

of a constitutional right. Eggenberger does not allege, and we do not believe, the

Township's activities would have chilled an ordinary person from publicizing any

concerns with the Township. Importantly, the Township did not do anything to chill

Eggenberger's right to public speech, but instead infringed his ability to access

documents, which is not a constitutionally protected right. See Houchins, 438 U.S.

-6-

Appellate Case: 15-1378 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/21/2016 Entry ID: 4390593 
at 10. Accordingly, Eggenberger has failed to show any chilling effect on his

constitutional rights. See Scheffler, 743 F.3d at 621 (requiring the plaintiff to show

a chilling effect on a constitutional right).

Eggenberger next alleges the Township retaliated by failing to comply with a

subpoena in the lawsuit filed by Eggenberger in which he was acting as a private

attorney general and instead improperly discussed the imposition of a restraining

order. This claim fails because Eggenberger's alleged protected activity does not

qualify. Although filing a lawsuit is generally a protected activity under the First

Amendment right to petition for the redress of grievances, the Supreme Court has

long held "baseless litigation is not immunized by the First Amendment right to

petition." BillJohnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 461 U.S. 731, 743 (1983); see

also McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 484 (1985). The state court dismissed

Eggenberger's lawsuit for failure to state a claim and because Eggenberger's "claim

[wa]s made for purposes of harassment, vexatiousness and otherwise in bad faith." 

Accordingly, Eggenberger did not engage in protected activity by filing the lawsuit

and his claim of retaliation fails. See Scheffler, 743 F.3d at 621 ("To prevail on his

First Amendment retaliation claim, [Eggenberger] must show (1) that he engaged in

a constitutionally protected activity . . . .").

III

Accordingly, we affirm the district court.

______________________________

-7-

Appellate Case: 15-1378 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/21/2016 Entry ID: 4390593