Wagner v. City of Le Sueur
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:25-cv-03998
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Wagner v. City of Le Sueur, Judge Provinzino allowed William F. Wagner to proceed without paying court fees and ordered his property-taking lawsuit served on the City of Le Sueur, but immediately put the case on hold because two related state criminal cases against Wagner must be resolved first.
William F. Wagner, a pro se plaintiff in a property-rights dispute with the City of Le Sueur, Minnesota, who is also facing two pending state misdemeanor criminal cases arising from the same underlying dispute. The City of Le Sueur is ordered to receive service of the lawsuit but need not respond until the stay is lifted.
What happened
In Wagner v. City of Le Sueur (Case No. 25-cv-3998), William F. Wagner sued the City of Le Sueur, Minnesota, claiming it placed a public sidewalk on his private property without paying him, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit the government from taking private property without just compensation. Wagner asked the court to remove the sidewalk, award him money damages, and dismiss two criminal citations he had received. He also asked to proceed without paying court filing fees because he cannot afford them.
The background involves two ongoing Minnesota state criminal cases against Wagner arising from incidents in June 2025, when Le Sueur hired construction companies to dig in front of Wagner's house to upgrade underground utilities. Wagner allegedly interfered with that work on two occasions and was cited for misdemeanor offenses each time, including disorderly conduct and interfering with a right of way. In his defense in those criminal cases, Wagner has already argued that Le Sueur had no legal right to conduct construction on his property — the same core question at the heart of his federal lawsuit.
Judge Provinzino found that Wagner's complaint states a valid legal claim and granted his request to proceed without paying fees, directing the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the lawsuit on the City of Le Sueur. However, the judge stayed (paused) the federal case under a legal doctrine called Younger abstention, which requires federal courts to hold off when a parallel state criminal proceeding is ongoing, the state has an important interest in that proceeding, and the federal questions can be raised in state court. Because all three conditions are met here — the criminal cases are ongoing, criminal prosecutions represent core state interests, and Wagner has already raised the property-rights issue in state court — the federal lawsuit will remain on hold until both state criminal cases are concluded. The City of Le Sueur must notify the court within seven days after the last of those criminal cases is resolved.
The detailed version
- Wagner v. City of Le Sueur, No. 25-cv-3998 (LMP/SGE)
- Laura M. Provinzino, United States District Judge
- October 31, 2025
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff William F. Wagner filed this pro se (self-represented) complaint on October 17, 2025, simultaneously with four other related federal lawsuits. He applied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) — that is, without prepaying court filing fees due to financial hardship. An IFP application triggers mandatory early screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires the court to dismiss complaints that fail to state a viable claim before the defendant is even served.
Plaintiff's Claims
Wagner alleges that the City of Le Sueur placed a public sidewalk on his private property without compensating him, constituting an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause (made applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment). He seeks removal of the sidewalk, monetary damages, and dismissal of two criminal citations he characterizes as 'frivolous.'
State Criminal Proceedings
The court took judicial notice of two pending Minnesota state criminal cases: - State v. Wagner, No. 40-CR-25-496: Wagner charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct (Minn. Stat. § 609.72) arising from a June 9, 2025 incident. - State v. Wagner, No. 40-CR-25-575: Wagner charged with two misdemeanors — public nuisance by interfering with a right of way (Minn. Stat. § 609.74) and a right-of-way violation (Minn. Stat. § 160.2715(a)(12)) — arising from a June 24, 2025 incident.
Both incidents occurred when police were called because Wagner allegedly interfered with construction work Le Sueur had ordered in front of his home to upgrade underground utilities. Both cases were set for hearing on November 12, 2025. Wagner filed an answer in each criminal case asserting that Le Sueur lacked a legal right of way and that the construction constituted a Fifth Amendment taking.
IFP Screening and Takings Analysis
Applying the Rule 12(b)(6) standard — accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences in Wagner's favor, with liberal construction due to his pro se status — the court found that Wagner's allegation that Le Sueur placed a public sidewalk on his private property without compensation plausibly alleges a per se physical taking under Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 601 U.S. 267, 274 (2024), and Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. 180, 189 (2019). Accordingly, the IFP application was granted and the complaint was not dismissed.
Younger Abstention — Stay of Federal Proceedings
Despite finding a viable claim, the court stayed the case under the abstention doctrine from Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under Younger abstention, a federal court must refrain from exercising jurisdiction when: (1) there is an ongoing state proceeding; (2) which implicates important state interests; and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to raise relevant federal questions in the state proceeding. Plouffe v. Ligon, 606 F.3d 890, 892 (8th Cir. 2010).
All three conditions were satisfied:
- Ongoing state proceedings: Both criminal cases remain pending and are parallel because whether Le Sueur held a valid legal interest in Wagner's property is directly at issue in each.
- Important state interests: Criminal prosecutions are the 'paradigmatic type' of state proceeding warranting abstention.
- Adequate opportunity to raise federal questions: Wagner has already raised the property rights/taking issue in both criminal cases.
The court noted that resolving the federal takings claim — which turns on whether Le Sueur had a valid right of way — would interfere with the ongoing state proceedings.
Orders:
- Wagner's IFP Application (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.
- The U.S. Marshals Service is directed to serve the City of Le Sueur at its City Administrator's office at 203 South Second Street, Le Sueur, MN
- 3. This action is STAYED pending resolution of both state criminal cases.
- All deadlines for the City of Le Sueur to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint are tolled (suspended) during the stay.
- Le Sueur must notify the court by letter (no more than two pages) within seven days after the later of the two state criminal judgments.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.