Lawsuit dismissed in latest chapter of wind turbine dispute in Orono 

An Orono resident who is a wind turbine enthusiast filed another lawsuit against Orono and various city employees, claiming that they had worked together to bring fraudulent civil and criminal actions against him with the purpose of driving him out of town. In a ruling issued on Jan. 5, the U.S. District Court for Minnesota granted defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Jay Nygard, who resided in the city of Orono, asked about regulations regarding wind turbines in 2010. He was told that they were not allowed within the city. When he submitted a building permit application for construction of a wind turbine, this was denied. Nevertheless, Nygard went ahead and began to install concrete footings for the generator. Although Orono sent Nygard a cease-and-desist letter that told Nygard to stop or be sued, Nygard disregarded it.

Orono sued, and Nygard was ordered to remove the wind generator from his property. Nygard still would not remove the wind generator, ultimately being held in contempt of court. Though he was given multiple chances to remove the generator over a period of six months, Nygard was eventually ordered taken into custody and later released.

Then, in 2013, Orono created an ordinance that banned wind turbines in Orono. Nygard filed suit, claiming that Minnesota law preempted the ordinance. Though the court ruled in Nygard’s favor, it did find that Orono had the ability to regulate small wind energy conversion systems. The city created a new ordinance in 2015, and although Nygard alleged tort claims against the city, the court found that Orono was statutorily immune from suit and the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed.

Nygard was also sued by his neighbors for public and private nuisance relating to erecting the windmill. They sought a writ of mandamus compelling Orono to enforce the ordinance and remove the wind turbine from Nygard’s property.

The court permanently enjoined Nygard from constructing or placing wind turbine structures on his property in 2018. Then, Nygard was prosecuted for replacing a driveway without having a permit. Although Nygard challenged the permit ordinance as unconstitutionally vague and raised claims of abuse of process and malicious prosecution, all of the claims were dismissed. It was appealed up all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied the petition for certiorari.

In this latest action, Nygard, who represented himself pro se, submitted a 525-paragraph complaint and 500 pages of exhibits, that the court described as “a summary of every criminal, administrative, or civil action that he has been a part of in the past twelve years, and he lists as Defendants every person or entity that has been involved in unfavorable actions against him.” From a formatting perspective alone, the court expressed discontent.

“Nygard’s pleadings are neither short nor plain,” Judge Donovan W. Frank wrote. “Nygard has been warned not to submit unreasonably lengthy and poorly organized pleadings. The Court could dismiss Nygard’s Complaint on this basis alone.”

Nygard brought several claims, including Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations, retaliation under the First Amendment, violation of the Fourth Amendment, and violation of the 14th Amendment. Many of Nygard’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations, including all of the Fourth Amendment violation claims and the RICO conspiracy claims.

There were only a few injuries that occurred within the statute of limitations, but the court found that other doctrines barred those claims. For instance, Nygard asserted that the suit brought by his neighbors was fraudulent and, by bringing the actions and participating in them, his constitutional rights were violated. “In other words, Nygard is asking the Court to review and reject prior state-court decisions. For the Court to rule in Nygard’s favor, the Court would have to conclude that the state court in the [neighbor Peter] Lanpher case wrongly decided numerous issues,” the court concluded, as it denied Nygard’s claims related to claims related to his neighbors’ nuisance lawsuit.

The court, having determined that all Nygard’s federal claims against defendants were barred, turned to Nygard’s state law claims. Ultimately, it dismissed those claims without prejudice. “Because this case remains in the very early stages of litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims,” the court wrote. “That being said, the Court encourages Nygard to read the Court’s order carefully, as many of his state-law claims may face similar issues as his federal claims.”