James Osher v. Land Clearance, etc., 903 F.3d 698

Background

Osher owned property within a site the City of St. Louis and the St. Louis Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (Redevelopment Authority) sought for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (Agency) headquarters relocation; the Redevelopment Authority initiated eminent domain proceedings and later obtained title after paying fair market value.
Osher sued in federal court seeking injunctions against the state condemnation proceedings and relocation benefits under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (the Act), invoking 42 U.S.C. § 4622 and § 1983.
The district court abstained from deciding Osher’s claim against the Redevelopment Authority under Younger v. Harris because parallel state condemnation proceedings were pending, and it dismissed Osher’s claim against the federal Agency, holding § 1983 does not reach federal agencies and the Act does not create a private right of action against the Agency.
Osher appealed; the Eighth Circuit found his notice of appeal timely (Rule 4 calculation and Rule 58 separate-judgment issue) and consolidated the appeal of both rulings.
On the merits, the Eighth Circuit held the Act does not unambiguously create a private cause of action or private remedy enforceable against the federal Agency; it also held Osher waived any meaningful challenge to the district court’s Younger abstention ruling by failing to brief it.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 4622 of the Uniform Relocation Act creates a private right of action against a federal agency	Osher: § 4622 entitles displaced persons to relocation benefits and implies a private cause of action to obtain them	Agency: § 1983 does not provide relief against federal agencies and the Act does not create an implied private right or remedy	No; the Act lacks rights‑creating language and provides administrative enforcement mechanisms, so no private cause of action against the Agency
Whether § 1983 authorizes suits against a federal agency to enforce the Act	Osher: sought relief under § 1983 to enforce relocation benefits	Agency: § 1983 does not apply to federal agencies	Court: § 1983 does not provide a remedy against federal agencies; plaintiff must show a separate congressional intent to create a private remedy
Whether the district court properly abstained under Younger from adjudicating claims against the Redevelopment Authority	Osher: appealed the abstention ruling (sought to challenge injunction and damages rulings)	Redevelopment Authority: district court should abstain due to ongoing state condemnation proceedings	Eighth Circuit: abstention ruling not meaningfully challenged in brief and is therefore waived
Whether Osher’s appeal was timely	Osher: notice filed June 16, 2017 after postjudgment motions—timely	Redevelopment Authority: initial dismissal was Dec 29, 2016; appeal untimely	Appeal timely: postjudgment motions tolled appeal period and Rule 58 separate-judgment defect meant judgment was deemed entered later; notice was timely

Key Cases Cited

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (federal courts should abstain from interfering with pending state proceedings in certain circumstances)
Sandoval v. Arizona, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (an implied private right of action requires unambiguous congressional intent)
Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (statutory language must be rights‑creating and focused on beneficiaries to imply a private right)
Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979) (framework for considering implied rights of action)
District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418 (1973) (§ 1983 does not create remedies against federal entities)
Tullock v. State Highway Commission, 507 F.2d 712 (8th Cir. 1974) (earlier Eighth Circuit decision finding judicial review for relocation assistance claims; later superseded by subsequent Supreme Court doctrine)
Jeffries v. United States, 721 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2013) (timing of entry of judgment and appeal period; Rule 58 separate-document requirement)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (timeliness of notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
J.I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426 (1964) (older view favoring implied remedies; later disclaimed)
Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975) (shifted approach to implied rights of action)
Norfolk Redevelopment & Housing Auth. v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of Va., 464 U.S. 30 (1983) (construed term "displaced person" under the Act but did not decide existence of private right)
White v. Jackson, 865 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir. 2017) (failure to develop an argument in briefing forfeits appellate review)