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 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.
It is doubtful that a private right of action exists at all under the Minnesota constitution for illegal-seizure claims. See Mlnarik v. City of Minnetrista, No. A09-0910, 2010 WL 346402, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2010). Even assuming that a private right of action does exist, however, "the Eleventh Amendment bars our court from ordering state officials to conform their conduct to state law."
Furthermore, "there is no private cause of action for violations of the Minnesota Constitution." Guite v. White, 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 that "no private cause of action for a violation of the Minnesota constitution has yet been recognized" and that a constitutional claim alleged thereunder was not cognizable (internal quotation marks omitted)). Therefore, to the extent Powell's § 1985 claims are premised on violations of the Minnesota Constitution, or to the extent Powell intends to assert claims directly under the Minnesota Constitution, those claims will be dismissed.
Defendants argue that the Court must dismiss Al-Kadi's state law constitutional claims because there is no private cause of action under the Minnesota Constitution. See, e.g. Jihad, 2011 WL 1641885, at *8 ("Minnesota has not enacted a statue that is equivalent to Section 1983, which provides a private cause of action for violations of the Federal Constitution."); Mlnarik v. City of Minnetrista, No. A09-910, 2010 WL 346402, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2010). But Minnesota case law suggests otherwise as it relates to the section under which Al-Kadi brings her claim: Article I, § 16 of the Minnesota Constitution. See Brooks, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 1053 n.12 (collecting cases).
Furthermore, "there is no private cause of action for violations of the Minnesota Constitution." Guite v. Wright, 976 F. Supp. 866, 871 (D. Minn. 1997); see also Mlnarik v. City of Minnetrista, No. A09-910, 2010 WL 346402, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2010) (unpublished) (explaining that "[n]o private cause of action for a violation of the Minnesota constitution has yet been recognized" and that a constitutional claim alleged thereunder was not cognizable (alteration in original)). Therefore, to the extent Eilen's § 1983 claims are premised on violations of the Minnesota Constitution, or to the extent Eilen intends to assert claims directly under the Minnesota Constitution, those claims must be dismissed.
Furthermore, "there is no private cause of action for violations of the Minnesota Constitution." Guite v. White, 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 that "no private cause of action for a violation of the Minnesota constitution has yet been recognized" and that a constitutional claim alleged thereunder was not cognizable (internal quotation marks omitted)). Therefore, to the extent Johnson's § 1983 claims are premised on violations of the Minnesota Constitution, or to the extent Johnson intends to assert claims directly under the Minnesota Constitution, those claims will be dismissed.
There is no recognized private cause of action for violations of the Minnesota Constitution. See State v. Beecroft, 813 N.W.2d 814, 837 (Minn. 2012); see also Danforth v. Eling, 2010 WL 4068791 at *6 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2010) (unpublished opinion) (citing Guite v. Wright, 976 F. Supp. 866, 871 (D. Minn. 1997), aff'd on other grounds, 147 F.3d 747 (8th Cir. 1998); Mlnarik v. City of Minnetrista, 2010 WL 346402 at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2010). Count III should be dismissed.
And they should be dismissed, because, as Defendants correctly argue, there is no private right of action for a violation of the Minnesota Constitution. Danforth v. Eling, No. A10–130, 2010 WL 4068791, at *6 (Minn.Ct.App. Oct. 19, 2010); Mlnarik v. City of Minnetrista, No. A09–910, 2010 WL 346402, at *1 (Minn.Ct.App. Feb. 2, 2010) (internal citations omitted); see also Jihad v. Fabian, Civ. No. 09–1604, 2011 WL 1641767, at *3 (D.Minn. May 2, 2011) (Nelson, J.) (“The Minnesota Legislature has not enacted a statute similar to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows civil lawsuits for violations of the U.S. Constitution. Nor has any Minnesota court recognized a private cause of action for a violation of the Minnesota Constitution.... Thus, Plaintiff's claims under the Minnesota Constitution must be dismissed.”).
Integrity Floorcovering, Inc. v. Broan-Nutone, LLC, 521 F.3d 914, 917 (8th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). No Minnesota court has found a direct cause of action for damages under Article I, Section 10. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has explicitly held that there is no private cause of action for damages under Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution. See Mlnarik v. City of Minnetrista, No. A09-910, 2010 WL 346402, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb.2, 2010) (unpublished). See also Davis v.Hennepin County, No. A11-1083, 2012 WL 896409, at *2 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2012) (unpublished) ("Minnesota does not allow private actions based on alleged violations of the Minnesota Constitution.") (citation omitted); Danforth v. Star Tribune Holdings Corp., No. A10-128, 2010 WL 4286242, at *5 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2010) (unpublished) ("[T]here is no private cause of action for violations of the Minnesota Constitution.") (citation omitted).
Hopkins' complaint also alleges that the City's seizure and retention of her vehicle violated her due process rights and right to be free from unreasonable seizures under the Minnesota Constitution, respectively, Article I, Section 7 and Article I, Section 10. Minnesota does not recognize a private cause of action for damages based on violations of the Minnesota Constitution. See, e.g., Mlnarik v. City of Minnetrista, No. A09-910, 2010 WL 346402, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2010) ("There is no private cause of action for violations of the Minnesota Constitution." (internal quotation marks omitted)).