Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03265/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03265-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Saint Paul
Appellee
Robyn Marshall
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jonathan

Lebedoff, Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3265

___________

Robyn Marshall, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, *

a Municipal Corporation of the * [UNPUBLISHED]

State of Minnesota, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 20, 2005

Filed: October 21, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robyn Marshall brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action asserting that the City of

Saint Paul (City), in demolishing a building she owned, took her property without just

compensation and without due process of law. She filed this complaint after a state

court dismissed her action for damages related to the demolition. The district court1

Appellate Case: 04-3265 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2005 Entry ID: 1965980
-2-

granted the City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(c), and implicitly affirmed the magistrate judge’s denial of

Marshall’s motion to compel discovery. Marshall appeals.

After de novo review, see Waldron v. Boeing Co., 388 F.3d 591, 593 (8th Cir.

2004), we conclude the judgment was proper because Marshall’s takings claim was

not ripe as she had not exhausted her state inverse condemnation remedy, see

Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 195

(1985) (if state provides adequate procedure for seeking just compensation, property

owner cannot bring takings claim until he has used procedure and been denied just

compensation), and her due process claim was barred, see Exxon Mobil Corp. v.

Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1521-22, 1524 n.2, 1526 n.8 (2005)

(federal district courts lack jurisdiction to hear federal non-habeas actions “brought

by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered

before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review

and rejection of those judgments”). Marshall’s other arguments do not provide a

basis for reversal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We also deny Marshall’s motion to

expand the record on appeal.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3265 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/21/2005 Entry ID: 1965980