United States District Court, D. Minnesota
N. ERICKSEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dahir Nor Ibrahim alleges violations of his constitutional
rights in an investigation that led to his indictment by a
federal grand jury and subsequent arrest, his trial on two of
the counts in which he was charged, and his acquittal by a
jury on those two counts. He sues Defendants Heather Weyker,
a police officer for the St. Paul Police Department in
Minnesota; John Bandemer, a St. Paul Police Department
sergeant who is alleged to have been Weyker's supervisor;
John Does 3-4, who are allegedly supervisory St. Paul police
officers; and the City of St. Paul (“St. Paul”).
Weyker and Bandemer move to dismiss Ibrahim's complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim and on absolute and qualified
immunity grounds. Dkt. No. 39. St. Paul moves on behalf of
the City of St. Paul and John Does 3-4 for judgment on the
pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c). Dkt. No. 45.
investigation at the core of Ibrahim's civil complaint
targeted a suspected venture involving the sex-trafficking of
minor girls across Minnesota, Tennessee, and Ohio. The
investigation resulted in the criminal indictment of thirty
people, mostly Somali, in the Middle District of Tennessee in
2010-2011 (“Tennessee Case”). Ibrahim alleges
that Weyker and Bandemer fabricated evidence about him and
others throughout the investigation, resulting in a tainted
indictment that was further corrupted by Weyker's
continuing deception, and causing his arrest and detention
without probable cause.
of his co-defendants in the Tennessee Case bring separate
suits similarly alleging constitutional violations, and a
twenty-first person brings another related civil suit. The
parties agreed to coordinated briefing on the Defendants'
motions. The Court assumes familiarity with its fuller
opinion in one of the related cases, Osman v. Weyker, et
al., No. 16cv908 (“Osman Opinion”) (filed
simultaneously herewith), and will not repeat that
opinion's discussion verbatim here. Ibrahim, coordinating
with the other plaintiffs represented by the same counsel,
opposed the motions. See GBBS Pls.' Opp. to St.
Paul Mot., Dkt. No. 51; GBBS Pls.' Opp. to DOJ Mot. to
Dismiss, Dkt. No. 54.
Court held a hearing on Defendants' motions on May 3,
2017, and now grants both motions.
motion to dismiss or a motion for judgment on the pleadings
is appropriately granted “only when there is no dispute
as to any material facts and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a [m]atter of law.” Greenman v.
Jessen, 787 F.3d 882, 887 (8th Cir. 2015) (citation
omitted). To survive a Rule 12 motion, “a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); Haney v. Portfolio Recovery
Assocs., LLC, 837 F.3d 918, 924 (8th Cir. 2016), as
amended (Dec. 27, 2016). See also Osman Op.
the allegations are similar to those alleged by Osman and
summarized and analyzed in the Court's order in that
case. See, e.g., Osman Op. 4-8. The Court briefly
recounts some allegations in Ibrahim's Amended Complaint
and some facts gleaned from the Tennessee Case
November 8, 2010, after a First Superseding Indictment
(“FSI”) was filed in the Tennessee Case dated
November 3, 2010, Ibrahim was arrested. AC ¶¶ 12,
16. He was held in custody until May 2012. AC ¶¶
12, 53. At a detention hearing on December 14, 2010, a
magistrate judge found by clear and convincing evidence that
there was a serious risk Ibrahim would not appear because, in
part, he had international family members and owned property
in Kenya and because of “his recent access to large
amounts of cash, presently unaccounted for.” United
States v. Ibrahim, No. 3:10cr260, Dkt. No. 359, at 2
(M.D. Tenn. Dec. 14, 2010).
indictment charged Ibrahim with two counts of conspiracy to
sex traffic a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 1594 (Counts 1 and
2) and one count of making a material false statement in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) (Count 24). AC ¶
16; FSI, United States v. Ibrahim, No. 3:10cr260,
Dkt. No. 36 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 3, 2010). In May 2011, a Second
Superseding Indictment was filed that charged Ibrahim in the
same three counts. AC ¶ 17.
sex-trafficking-related charges as to Ibrahim did not specify
his involvement with any particular victims. See AC
¶ 20. “Prior to trial, Jane Doe Five became the
centerpiece of Weyker's and Bandemer's fabricated
case against Ibrahim . . . .” AC ¶ 22. Weyker was
the lead investigator on the case, and Bandemer was her
supervisor in the St. Paul Police Department. AC ¶ 15.
February 16, 2012, the district court granted a motion to
sever multiple counts, including Count 24, from the upcoming
trial. United States v. Ibrahim, No. 3:10cr260, Dkt.
No. 1395 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 16, 2012); SAC ¶ 19. Count 24
“was later dismissed.” SAC ¶ 19.
went to trial on Counts 1 and 2 in Spring 2012. AC ¶ 18.
“At trial, Jane Doe Five testified that ‘in 2000
[Ibrahim] traveled to Minnesota from Nashville looking for
girls to take back to Nashville and asked Jane Doe [Five] if
she wanted to travel to Nashville for prostitution.” AC
¶ 24 (quoting United States v. Adan, 913
F.Supp.2d 555, 572 (M.D. Tenn. 2012)). “There was never
any such conspiracy and Ibrahim never engaged in any attempt
to have Jane Doe Five engage in commercial sex.” AC
¶ 25. “Fabricated evidence formed the basis of
this false allegation against Ibrahim.” Id.
Weyker and the other defendants “concoct[ed] stories
for putative victims like Jane Doe Five and coach[ed] them to
testify-albeit unbelievably and inconsistently-in support of
the Indictment.” AC ¶ 35. Ibrahim “had no
material involvement with Jane Doe Five.” AC ¶ 26.
was acquitted of conspiracy as to child sex trafficking by
the jury as ‘[t]he Government did not prove that
Ibrahim ever actually secured and transported any minor girls
from Minneapolis to Nashville nor any proof of the ages of
any girls.'” AC ¶ 27 (quoting Adan,
913 F.Supp.2d at 572). The jury's acquittals of Ibrahim
and five other defendants in the trial “indicate that
the jury . . . rejected all of the charges supported by Jane
Doe 5's testimony.'” AC ¶ 38 (quoting
United States v. Fahra, 643 Fed.Appx. 480, 489 (6th
jury convicted three other defendants on some counts but
acquitted them on others. Adan, 913 F.Supp.2d at
560. After the trial, the district court granted these
defendants' Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motions
for judgments of acquittal on the basis of a variance, and
the government appealed that order. See Id. at 579.
On March 2, 2016, the Sixth ...