United States District Court, D. Minnesota
JOSHUA-BERNARD SMITH, PRO SE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on the objections
(“Objections”) [Doc. No. 9] of Plaintiff
Joshua-Bernard Smith to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau's
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [Doc. No.
8] recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff's
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (“IFP Application”) [Doc. No. 2]
and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. No. 1] without
prejudice. The Court overrules Plaintiff's objections,
adopts the R&R in full, denies Plaintiff's IFP
Application, and dismisses Plaintiff's action without
December 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for violation
of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl.
[Doc. No. 1] at 6.) Plaintiff claims that, when he was
arrested on May 4, 2018, law enforcement violated his right
of free travel and his right to be free of racial
discrimination. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that he was
arrested solely because of “racial profiling, ”
that his arrest was actually kidnapping, and that the
property taken from him during the arrest, including a car
and over $13, 000 in cash, was unlawfully seized.
(Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff requests the return of his
property as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
(Id. at 7.)
May 4, 2018 arrest led him to be charged with numerous
crimes. See Register of Actions, State v.
Smith, No. 19HA-CR-18-2000 (May 4, 2018), available
at http://pa.courts.state.mn.us (last visited March 5,
2019). After a jury trial in January 2019, Plaintiff was
found guilty of three felonies-one count of possession of a
controlled substance and two counts of driving while
impaired. (Id.) His sentencing is scheduled for
March 2019. (Id.)
R&R, Magistrate Judge Rau found that, while Plaintiff
qualifies financially for in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) status, because Plaintiff's Complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, his
action should be dismissed. (R&R at 1.) Specifically, the
magistrate judge notes that under Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994), a plaintiff cannot maintain a civil case
that, if successful, would necessarily cast doubt on the
validity of his facially valid confinement. (Id. at
3.) This means Plaintiff may not bring his claim until his
criminal judgment has been “expunged, vacated, or
otherwise called into question.” Hollie v.
Roy, No. 17-CV-1434 (PJS/SER), 2017 WL 2841230, at *3
(D. Minn. May 30, 2017). Therefore, Magistrate Judge Rau
concluded that until Plaintiff successfully challenges the
legality of his conviction, he cannot seek relief from his
arrest under § 1983. (Id. at 4.)
February 25, 2019, Plaintiff objected to Magistrate Judge
Rau's R&R. Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge
Rau's conclusion that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Pl's
Objections at 2.) In addition, Plaintiff includes a number of
wide-ranging and scattered objections such as contentions
that the Court lacks jurisdiction, Magistrate Judge Rau
failed to afford Plaintiff the same security as held by other
United States citizens, and that Plaintiff is a corporation
and should be treated as one. (See generally
Standard of Review
issuance of an R&R, a party may “serve and file
specific written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). The objections
should specify the portion of the magistrate judge's
[R&R] to which objections are made and provide a basis
for those objections.” Mayer v. Walvatne, No.
07-cv-1958 (JRT/RLE), 2008 WL 4527774, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept.
28, 2008). Then, the district court will review de
novo those portions of the R&R to which an objection
is made, and it “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3).
which are not specific but merely parrot arguments already
presented to and considered by the magistrate judge are not
entitled to de novo review. Dunnigan v. Fed.
Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. 15-cv-2626 (SRN/JSM), 2017
WL 825200, at *3 (D. Minn. Mar. 2, 2017) (citing Mashak
v. Minnesota, No. 11-cv-473 (JRT/JSM), 2012 WL 928251,
at *2 (D. Minn. Mar. 19, 2012)). Furthermore, when presenting
arguments to a magistrate judge, parties must put forth
“not only their ‘best shot' but all of their
shots.” Ridenour v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm.,
Inc., 679 F.3d 1062, 1067 (8th Cir. 2012) (quotations
and citations omitted). Thus, a party cannot, in his
objections to an R&R, raise arguments that were not
clearly presented to the magistrate judge. Hammann v.
1-800 Ideas.com, Inc., 455 F.Supp.2d 942, 947-48 (D.
only objection that raises an argument previously presented
to Magistrate Judge Rau is his contention that his IFP
Application should not have been dismissed for failure to
state a claim. However, if an IFP applicant files a complaint
that fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may
be granted, the Court may dismiss the action and concurrent
IFP petition. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);
Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1128 (8th Cir. 1996)
(per curiam). Because the language of §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks the language of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court applies Rule 12(b)(6)
standards when evaluating dismissals under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Washington v. Vaghn, No.
14-CV-525 (JRT/JSM), 2014 WL 3687240, at *3-4 (D. Minn. July
24, 2014) (citing Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 ...