Greene v. Simpson
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-00703
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 12
In Greene v. Simpson, Judge Tostrud dismissed the entire case without prejudice after finding that plaintiffs Kyle and Krystle Greene, who sued ten defendants over an alleged unlawful eviction from their Minnesota property, failed to establish that the federal court had the power to hear the case under any theory of jurisdiction they asserted.
Pro se litigants (self-represented parties) who file cases in federal court asserting jurisdiction based on federal law or diversity of citizenship without adequately pleading the factual basis for that jurisdiction. Also relevant to parties facing eviction-related disputes who seek federal court intervention but whose claims rest primarily on state law.
What happened
In Greene v. Simpson, Kyle and Krystle Greene filed this lawsuit on their own behalf (without a lawyer) against ten defendants — including attorneys, a law firm, a county attorney, and private individuals — claiming unlawful actions connected to what appears to be an eviction from property they occupy in Meeker County, Minnesota. They sought a range of relief including title to the property, damages of $16,800, sanctions against all defendants, and even the disbarment of two attorney-defendants. Most defendants asked the court to dismiss the case.
The central issue was whether a federal court had the legal authority — called subject-matter jurisdiction — to hear this dispute at all. Federal courts can hear cases in two main situations: (1) when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000 (called diversity jurisdiction), or (2) when the case involves a claim based on federal law (called federal question jurisdiction). The Greenes tried to invoke both, but the court found neither was properly established. On diversity, the Greenes failed to allege the citizenship of most defendants correctly, and at least one defendant — the Jensen & Cross law firm — is incorporated in Minnesota, the same state as the plaintiffs, which alone destroys diversity. On federal question, the court examined each of the Greenes' seven claims and found that three were purely based on Minnesota law, and the remaining four that referenced federal law did so in ways that were too vague, unsupported, or legally inapplicable to create real federal questions.
Judge Tostrud granted all four pending motions to dismiss and dismissed the entire case without prejudice — meaning the Greenes are not permanently barred from refiling, but would need to establish proper jurisdiction to do so. The judge also denied two motions filed by the Greenes: a motion for sanctions against County Attorney Brandi Schiefelbein (who had not been properly served) and a second motion asking the court to take judicial notice of certain facts (which was rendered moot by the dismissal).
The detailed version
- Greene v. Simpson, File No. 25-cv-703 (ECT/ECW), United States District Court, District of Minnesota
- Eric C. Tostrud
- August 25, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs Kyle Greene and Krystle Greene, proceeding pro se (representing themselves without an attorney), filed an Amended Complaint against ten defendants: attorney Brian Cross; attorney Larry Jensen; law firm Jensen & Cross, Ltd.; Jenny Adams; a defendant referred to as 'The Shadow Man'; Katherine Simpson; Celeste Simpson; the Carmen Simpson Revocable Trust; the law firm Thomton, Sperry, Jensen & Keithahn, Ltd.; and Meeker County Attorney Brandi Schiefelbein. The dispute appears to arise from proceedings related to the Greenes' eviction or potential eviction from property in Meeker County, Minnesota, which they claim to own. The Greenes sought title to the property, declaratory and injunctive relief, sanctions against all defendants, $16,800 in damages, litigation costs, disbarment of two attorney-defendants for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and any other equitable relief.
Motions
Eight of the ten defendants moved to dismiss: Cross, Jensen, and Jensen & Cross, Ltd. (ECF Nos. 4, 36); Adams and 'Shadow Man' (ECF No. 10); and Katherine Simpson, Celeste Simpson, and the Carmen Simpson Revocable Trust (ECF No. 24). The Thomton law firm did not appear; the defendants represented it is the former name of Jensen & Cross, Ltd. County Attorney Schiefelbein stated she had not been served, and the docket reflected no proof of service on her.
Legal Standard
The court analyzed the motions as facial attacks on subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), meaning the defendants accepted the Amended Complaint's allegations as true for purposes of the motion. Under this standard, the court is limited to the face of the pleadings and materials necessarily embraced by them. The burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction rests on the party invoking federal court authority — here, the Greenes.
Diversity Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332(a))
Diversity jurisdiction requires 'complete diversity' — no plaintiff can share state citizenship with any defendant. The Greenes, Minnesota citizens, properly alleged that Katherine Simpson is an Illinois citizen and Celeste Simpson is a Colorado citizen. However, they failed to properly allege the citizenship of any other defendant: they identified only business addresses for the individual defendants (which shows where they work, not their 'permanent home' or legal domicile) and failed to allege, for business entities, either state of incorporation and principal place of business (for corporations) or the citizenship of all members (for unincorporated entities). Moreover, the court noted that a public record establishes Jensen & Cross, Ltd. is incorporated in Minnesota, making it a Minnesota citizen — which alone defeats complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
Federal Question Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331)
Federal question jurisdiction exists when a claim arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, as shown on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. Importantly, jurisdiction is lacking if the federal question raised is 'patently meritless.' The court examined the Amended Complaint's seven claims:
- Minnesota homestead exemption claim — based solely on Minnesota law; no federal question.
- Burglary and trespassing claim — based solely on Minnesota law; no federal question.
- Abuse of process claim — based solely on Minnesota law; no federal question.
- Full Faith and Credit Clause claim — neither the Clause nor its implementing statute (28 U.S.C. § 1738) creates a private right of action, and the Amended Complaint did not describe how the Clause was violated.
- Equal Protection claim against County Attorney Schiefelbein — the Greenes alleged she refused to investigate a letter Kyle Greene sent her, but the Amended Complaint never alleged the core requirement of an equal protection claim — that the Greenes were treated differently from similarly situated individuals.
- Conspiracy claim — cited two federal cases but made only a factual allegation about Meeker County property transfer policy with no discernible connection to those cases, to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the federal civil rights statute allowing suits against government actors for constitutional violations), or to an identifiable conspiracy.
- Sanctions claim — relied almost entirely on Minnesota law; the one federal citation was to a case affirming Rule 11 sanctions, but Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is a procedural rule governing conduct in litigation and does not create an independent cause of action or a jurisdiction-triggering federal question.
The court concluded that to the extent the Greenes intended to assert federal claims, those claims were 'so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, [and] plainly unsubstantial,' quoting Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974).
Supplemental Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367)
Supplemental jurisdiction — which allows a federal court to also hear related state-law claims when it already has jurisdiction over federal claims — was unavailable because no valid basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed in the first place.
Minnesota Statutes as Jurisdictional Basis
The Greenes cited three Minnesota statutes (Minn. Stat. §§ 501C.0202, 501C.0605, 501C.0706) as independent grounds for jurisdiction. The court rejected this outright: state statutes cannot create federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Erie Doctrine Argument
In their opposition briefs, the Greenes argued jurisdiction existed under the Erie doctrine (Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)). The court explained that the Erie doctrine governs which law federal courts apply in diversity cases (state substantive law, federal procedural law) but provides no independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction.
Ruling
Judge Tostrud granted all pending motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 4, 10, 24, 36) and dismissed the entire action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 'Without prejudice' means the Greenes are not permanently barred from refiling, but any new complaint would need to properly establish jurisdiction. The court denied the Greenes' Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 64) because County Attorney Schiefelbein had not been served and therefore had no obligation to appear. The court denied the Greenes' Second Motion to Take Judicial Notice (ECF No. 45) as moot given the dismissal of the case.
Note on Thomton Law Firm and Schiefelbein
The Thomton firm's non-appearance did not affect the adjudication of any pending motion. Schiefelbein's non-appearance was explained by lack of service.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.