Clarence Johnson, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-0052

Clarence Johnson,
Appellant,

Pauline Johnson,
Plaintiff,

vs.

County of Hennepin,
Respondent.

Filed July 22, 2019
Affirmed
Slieter, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-18-14064

Clarence Johnson, Richfield, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Rick J. Sheridan, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and
Slieter, Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SLIETER, Judge
Clarence Johnson challenges the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(a).1 We affirm.
FACTS
In 1999, Johnson and his wife purchased a home on 66th Street in Richfield . In
2015, Hennepin County informed Johnson of its plans to reconstruct 66th Street, acquire
the parcel, and compensate Johnson for the property . Eventually, Hennepin County
purchased the property. Johnson and his wife obtained a replacement home after Hennepin
County’s acquisition of the parcel.
On April 20, 2017, Johnson filed a complaint in the United States District Court
against Hennepin County for “taking their property for a public use without just
compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Johnson v. City of Richfield , No. 17-CV-01254 (PJS/HB), 2017 WL 8787048, at *1 (D.
Minn. Dec. 5, 2017). Johnson’s complaint also raised state-law claims under the Minnesota
Constitution and Minn. Stat. §§ 117.031, .187, .232 (2016). Id. at *3. The federal district

1 Johnson’s brief does not clearly identify an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of
his breach-of-contract claim pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e), or its striking of his
request for punitive damages for failing to comply with Minn. Stat. § 549.191 (2018).
Although Johnson is a pro se litigant, Johnson must comply with the same standards
imposed on attorneys. See Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald , 629 N.W.2d 115, 119 (Minn. Ap p.
2001). We deem these matters forfeited because Johnson failed to present an argument on
these issues. Melina v. Chaplin, 327 N.W.2d 19, 20 (Minn. 1982) ; see State v. Beaulieu,
859 N.W.2d 275, 278 n.3 (Minn. 2015) (recognizing that failing to make an a ssertion of
right constitutes forfeiture rather than waiver).

3
court dismissed Johnson’s Fifth Amendment claim with prejudice on the merits , but the
remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice. Johnson v. City of Richfield ,
No. 17-CV-1254 (PJS/HB), 2018 WL 1009107, at *2 (D. Minn. Feb. 22, 2018).
On August 28, 2018, Johnson sued Hennepin County. Johnson’s complaint sought
relief in the form of: (1) $31,850 for down payment for the replacement home, (2) $6,804
in “discount p[o]ints,” and (3) 2016 property taxes. Additionally, the complaint noted that
“all punitive damages must apply.” The complaint’s basis for relief cited portions of the
Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act (MURA), specifically Minn. Stat. §§ 117.50-.56
(2018); a breach -of-contract claim; and the federal Uniform Relocation Act (URA), see
generally 42 U.S.C. §§ 4621-38 (2012), and implem enting regulations, specifically
49 C.F.R. § 24.403(b) (2014).2 Hennepin County moved to dismiss for lack of subject -
matter jurisdiction, Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(a), and failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). Johnson responded. The district court
dismissed Johnson’s complaint and entered judgment. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
I. The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s relocation claims for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.
“Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to consider an action or
issue a ruling that will decide the issues raised by the pleadings.” Rasmussen v. Sauer ,

2 URA includes both a statutory and regulatory scheme “for the fair and equitable treatment
of persons displaced as a direct result of programs or projects undertaken by a Federal
agency or with Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 4621; see also 49 C.F.R. § 24.1
(2014) (recognizing the purpose of the regulations “to promulgate ru les to implement”
URA).

4
597 N.W.2d 328, 330 (Minn. App. 1999), review denied (Minn. Sept. 14, 1999). “Subject
matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of the parties, it cannot be waived, and
it can be raised at any time in the proceeding.” Tischer v. Hous. & Redevelopment Auth.,
693 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 2005). “Whether subject -matter jurisdicti on exists is a
question of law, which is reviewed de novo.” Centra Homes, LLC v. City of Norwood
Young Am., 834 N.W.2d 581, 585 (Minn. App. 2013).
The district court dismissed Johnson’s claim pursuant to MURA because Johnson
failed to exhaust the administrative remedies for the claim. The district court dismissed
Johnson’s federal URA claim implicitly for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for the same
reason.
Johnson’s brief before this court does not address the issue of s ubject-matter
jurisdiction. Johnson cites Minn. Stat. §§ 117.50-.56 as grounds for relief without
identifying error in the district court’s determination that he should have raised the claim
in the administrative process. Similarly, Johnson’s brief cites 49 C.F.R. § 24.4039D as
grounds for relief , which appears to be a typographical error with the intention to cite to
49 C.F.R. § 24.403(b)—the basis for relief identified in the complaint before the district
court. This court does not presume err or on appeal; it is the burden of the appellant to
establish a basis for reversal. Waters v. Fiebelkorn, 13 N.W.2d 461, 464-65 (Minn. 1944).
A. MURA Claim
First, Johnson’s complaint in district court sought relief for relocation benefits under
MURA. “In 1973, the Minnesota Legislature enacted MURA for the purpose of making
public funds available to reimburse relocation costs incurred by households and businesses

5
displaced by the public acquisition of property when there is no federal financial
participation.” In re Midway Pro Bowl Relocation Benefits Claim , ___ N.W.2d ___,
___, 2019 WL 2167739, at *2 (Minn. App. May 20, 2019) (Midway Pro Bowl), review
granted (Minn. June 26, 2019) . MURA provides that contested claim s for relocation
benefits are first addressed by a n administrative law judge . Id.; see also Instant Testing
Co. v. Cmty. Sec. Bank , 715 N.W.2d 124, 126 (Minn. App. 2006) ( “Generally, disputes
involving relocation benefits are processed administratively and are subject to judicial
review only by writ of certiorari to the court of appeals.”).
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 117.52, subd. 4:
Relocation assistance eligibility or amount determined
by administrative law judge. Notwithstanding any law or rule
to the contrary, if a person entitled to re location assistance
under this section does not accept the acquiring authority’ s
determination of the amount of relocation assistance or if a
person does not accept the acquiring authority ’s denial of
relocation assistance, the acquiring authority must ini tiate
contested case proceedings under sections 14.57 to 14.66 for a
determination of the eligibility for or amount of relocation
assistance that must be provided by the acquiring authorit y.
The administrative law judge’s determination of the person’ s
eligibility for or amount of relocation assistance that the
acquiring authority must provide constitutes a final decision in
the case, as provided in section 14.62, subdivision 4.
Minn. Stat. §§ 14.57-.66 (2018) discuss the contested administrative process and judicial
review of contested administrative proceedings. If a party disagrees with the administrative
law judge’s determination, then that party may seek a writ of certiorari. Minn. Stat.
§ 14.63.

6
Johnson’s request for relocation benefits pursuant to MURA must be sought through
the administrative process. See Midway Pro Bowl, 2019 WL 2167739, at *2. The district
court did not err by dismissing the claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Cf. State
ex rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass’n v. Nicollet Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs , 711 N.W.2d
522, 525-27 (Minn. App. 2006) (recognizing that a statute providing remedies in addition
to any administrative rights granted the district court sub ject-matter jurisdiction over a
Minnesota Environmental Rights Act claim), review denied (Minn. June 20, 2006).
B. URA Claim
Second, Johnson’s complaint sought relief under URA. Johnson specifically
requested application of 49 C.F.R. § 24.403(b) in his complaint that a “replacement home
must be safe, decent, sanitary inspected.” Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 24.403(b):
Before making a replacement housing payment or
releasing the initial payment from escrow, the Agency or its
designated representative shall inspect the replacement
dwelling and determine whether it is a decent, safe, and
sanitary dwelling as defined at § 24.2(a)(8).
The term “agency” in the regulation is defined as “the Federal Agency, State, State Agency,
or person that acquires real property or displaces a person.” 49 C.F.R. § 24.2(a)(1) (2014).
Any aggrieved person may file a written appeal with the
Agency in any case in which the person believes that the
Agency has failed to properly consider the person’s application
for assistance under this part. Such assistance may
include, . . . a relocation payment required under this part. The
Agency shall consider a written appeal regardless of form.
49 C.F.R. § 24.10(b) (2014). The agency must address appeals f rom aggrieved persons.
Id. (a) (2014). After the agency receives the information in support of the person’s appeal:

7
[T]he Agency shall make a written determination on the
appeal, including an explanation of the basis on which the
decision was made, and furnish the person a copy . If the full
relief requested is not granted, the Agency shall advise the
person of his or her right to seek judicial review of the Agency
decision.
Id. (g) (2014).
This court has acknowledged URA does not identify the type of ju dicial review
available in 49 C.F.R. § 24.10(g). “The regulations do not specifically provide for review
in district court. In the absence of authority to review an administrative decision in district
court, a writ of certiorari pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 606.01 and Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 120
is the only method of review.” Naegele Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. Minneapolis Cmty. Dev.
Agency, 551 N.W.2d 235, 237 (Minn. App. 1996); see also Wax ‘n Works v. City of St.
Paul, 213 F.3d 1016, 1020 (8th Cir. 2000) (“Th e Minnesota courts have held that judicial
review of an administrative agency decision is available through a writ of certiorari from a
state appellate court.”). Johnson sought relief in the district court, which lacked jurisdiction
over the URA claim.
“Courts generally require that before judicial review of administrative proceedings
will be permitted, the appropriate channels of administrative appeal must be followed.”
Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Metro. Airport s Comm’n, 672 N.W.2d 379, 381 (Minn. App. 2003) ,
review denied (Minn. Feb. 25, 2004). The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s
relocation claims and entered judgment for lack o f subject -matter jurisdiction because
Johnson failed to properly seek relief through the administrative process.

8
II. Johnson’s just-compensation claim is not properly before this court.

Johnson’s brief raised a claim he described as “just compensation ” pursuant to
Minn. Stat. § 117.187 (2018). This provision provides:
When an owner must relocate, the amount of damages
payable, at a minimum, must be sufficient for an owner to
purchase a comparable property in the community and not less
than the condemning authority ’s payment or deposit under
section 117.042, to the extent that the damages will not be
duplicated in the co mpensation otherwise awarded to the
owner of the property. For the purposes of this section,
“owner” is defined as the person or entity that holds fee title to
the property.
Johnson, however, failed to raise this claim to the district court. Appellate courts generally
will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court. Thiele v. Stich,
425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988). We, therefore, do not address this claim.
Affirmed.