Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04142/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04142-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4142

___________

Rarity Abdullah, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

State of Minnesota, State Court *

System; Hennepin County District * [UNPUBLISHED]

Court Judges, *

*

Defendants, *

*

Eathan Weinzeirl, in his *

individual capacity; *

*

Appellee, *

*

Lucy A. Wieland, in her individual *

and official capacities; Jane *

Whisney-Wilson, in her individual *

and official capacities; Dana Banwer, *

in her individual and official capacities, *

*

Defendants. *

___________

Submitted: January 22, 2008

 Filed: February 4, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

Appellate Case: 06-4142 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2008 Entry ID: 3398516
1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota, adopting in part the report and recommendations of the Honorable Susan

R. Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

2

Abdullah asserted claims against other persons or entities who were dismissed

over the course of the litigation, but only the dismissal of his claim against Weinzeirl

is before this court.

-2-

PER CURIAM.

Rarity Abdullah appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

claim against Hennepin County Deputy Sheriff Eathan Weinzeirl, alleging that

Weinzeirl violated his constitutional rights by “planting” drugs that were used to issue

a citation against him for possession of marijuana, a petty misdemeanor under

Minnesota law.2

 After Abdullah admitted in the district court that he had been issued

a fine and that there was no pending matter in state court, the district court granted

Weinzeirl’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed

Abdullah’s claim without prejudice under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994),

because the complaint was silent as to the status of the citation.

On appeal, Abdullah argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claim

because Heck only applies to criminal matters and a petty misdemeanor is a civil

action under Minnesota law; because his claim should have been stayed in light of

Wallace v. Kato, 127 S. Ct. 1091, 1098 (2007) (indicating that if plaintiff files civil

action alleging false arrest and claim necessarily requires invalidation of anticipated

future conviction, federal court should stay civil action until criminal case is

terminated); because the court improperly considered matters outside the complaint

and imposed a heightened pleading requirement on him; and because he has no other

means to obtain federal review given his ineligibility for habeas relief. He also

challenges the validity of Heck, arguing that it encourages police to file false criminal

charges to protect themselves from civil liability, and that it has been undermined by

Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 912 (2007).

Appellate Case: 06-4142 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2008 Entry ID: 3398516
-3-

This court reviews de novo a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), assuming all

factual allegations in the complaint as true. See Levy v. Ohl, 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th

Cir. 2007). Heck provides that in order to recover damages for “harm caused by

actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” a section

1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct

appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by an authorized state tribunal,

or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. See

Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. If a plaintiff cannot make the requisite showing, dismissal

is appropriate. See id. at 486-87 (district court must consider whether judgment in

favor of plaintiff would necessarily imply invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if

it would the complaint must be dismissed unless plaintiff can demonstrate that

conviction or sentence has already been invalidated).

We conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Abdullah’s section

1983 claim under Heck, because success on his claim would necessarily render invalid

the “sentence” of a fine imposed for his possession of marijuana, and because he did

not allege or show that the fine had been invalidated or that his criminal pettymisdemeanor case had otherwise been resolved in his favor. See Minn. Stat.

§§ 152.027, subd. 4 (person who unlawfully possesses small amount of marijuana is

guilty of petty misdemeanor), 609.02, subd. 4a (“sentence of a fine of not more than

$300 may be imposed” for petty misdemeanor); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127

S. Ct. 1955, 1964-69 (2007) (to survive Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion, factual

allegations of complaint must do more than state speculative right to relief on

assumption that all allegations in complaint are true; complaint must contain either

direct or inferential allegations respecting all material elements necessary to sustain

recovery under some viable legal theory); Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1172 (8th

Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (claim based on assertion that evidence was unlawfully

planted was barred by Heck); see also State v. Tessema, 515 N.W.2d 626, 627 (Minn.

Ct. App. 1994) (appeal of petty misdemeanor is criminal, not civil).

Appellate Case: 06-4142 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/04/2008 Entry ID: 3398516
-4-

We also conclude that Abdullah is not entitled to a stay under Wallace, because

Abdullah admitted in the district court that there was no pending matter in state court.

See Andrews v. St. Louis Joint Stock Land Bank, 127 F.2d 799, 804 (8th Cir. 1942)

(judicial admission is conclusive upon party by whom it was made); see also LeMay

v. U.S. Postal Serv., 450 F.3d 797, 799 (8th Cir. 2006) (court may affirm district

court’s dismissal on any basis supported by record). 

Finally, Abdullah’s inability to obtain habeas relief does not preclude

application of Heck. Cf. Entzi v. Redmann, 485 F.3d 998, 1003 (8th Cir. 2007)

(holding Heck’s favorable-termination rule barred claim of habeas-ineligible former

prisoner). His policy disagreements with Heck are unavailing, and his reliance on

Jones v. Bock is misplaced because that case addressed the unrelated issue of the

exhaustion requirement regarding prison grievances under the PLRA. See Jones, 127

S. Ct. at 918-22.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-4142 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/04/2008 Entry ID: 3398516