United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Ahmed Hussein, plaintiff pro se.
M. Tabbert, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, counsel
S. DOTY, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
matter is before the court upon the motion to dismiss the
complaint by defendant State of Minnesota (the State) and the
motion for preliminary injunction by pro se plaintiff Gamada
Hussein. Based on a review of the file, record, and
proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the motion
to dismiss is granted and the motion for preliminary
injunction is denied.
2019, Hussein filed a complaint against “Minnesota and
John Does” seeking “declaratory, injunctive, and
monetary relief against Defendants, State of Minnesota via
Minnesota Attorney General Office.” Compl. at
Hussein, a Muslim man of Ethiopian decent, alleges that the
State has deprived him of his constitutional rights on the
basis of his “race, religion, color of his skin,
ethnicity, alienage, ancestry, and/or national origin.”
Id. at 2, 5. Among other things, Hussein contends
that “[p]olice department[s], Sheriffs, State Troopers,
and local undercover agents” acted in concert with the
CIA and FBI to unlawfully surveil, torture, oppress, harass,
discriminate against, intimidate, and defame him.
Id. at 5. He also alleges that the State controls
his mind and body through drugs, witchcraft, and technology
implanted in his body, and that it has poisoned him and
attempted to assassinate him on numerous occasions. See
generally id. Hussein states that former Governor Mark
Dayton and current Governor Tim Walz, as well as former
Attorney General Lori Swanson and present Attorney General
Keith Ellison, are aware of the State's actions, but he
does not allege that any of these individuals have been
involved in his alleged persecution. See, e.g.,
id. at 65-66. Throughout his complaint, Hussein also
seems to imply that the “[p]olice department[s],
Sheriffs, State Troopers, and local undercover agents,
” as well as the CIA and FBI, are defendants in the
instant suit. See, e.g., id. at 5, 18, 25,
35-36, 40, 51, 64. Hussein stated at the hearing that he
could name individual defendants if he wanted to, but he has
failed to do so.
State now moves to dismiss on the grounds that it is immune
from suit under the Eleventh Amendment or, in the
alternative, that Hussein has failed to state a claim and has
improperly served the State.
Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity
must dismiss an action over which it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). In a facial challenge
under Rule 12(b)(1), the court accepts the factual
allegations in the pleadings as true and views the facts in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See
Hastings v. Wilson, 516 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir. 2008).
In considering a facial 12(b)(1) challenge, the court limits
its inquiry to the pleadings. Osborn v. United
States, 918 F.2d 724, 729 n.6 (8th Cir. 1990).
doctrine of sovereign immunity derives from the Eleventh
Amendment and prohibits an individual from suing a state,
regardless of the relief sought, unless the state consents to
suit or Congress abrogates state immunity. See U.S.
Const. amend. XI; Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida,
517 U.S. 44, 54-56 (1996); Klingler v. Dep't of
Revenue, 455 F.3d 888, 893 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing
Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15 (1890)). The
Eleventh Amendment also bars bringing state-law claims
against an unconsenting state in federal court. Cooper v.
St. Cloud State Univ., 226 F.3d 964, 968 (8th Cir.
2000). A federal court must dismiss an action barred by the
Eleventh Amendment for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
See Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 64- 65.
Hussein alleged at the hearing that he could have sued
individual state actors by name, the fact remains that he has
not done so. Hussein sued only the State and unnamed
“John Does.” The State has not waived its
sovereign immunity with regard to any of Hussein's
claims. Any relief sought for the alleged violations of
Hussein's constitutional rights must be brought through
the federal civil rights statutes, as the amendments
themselves do not create a cause of action against the State.
See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 638 (1980);
cf. Lockridge v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ark., 315
F.3d 1005, 1016 (8th Cir. 2003). The State has not waived its
sovereign immunity with regard to suits brought under
§§ 1981, 1983, or 1985. See, e.g.,
Murphy v. Arkansas, 127 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir.
1997) (holding the state has not waived immunity for claims
brought under § 1983); Roberson v. Minnesota,
No. 16-2578, 2017 WL 131742 (D. Minn. Jan. 13, 2017)
(adopting report and recommendation holding that the state
has not waived sovereign immunity for claims under §
1985); Smith v. Fabian, No. 10-2193, 2012 WL 1004982
(D. Minn. Mar. 25, 2012) (holding the state has not waived
sovereign immunity for claims under § 1981). As such,
Counts I, III-VI, XII, and XVI, alleging violations of
Hussein's constitutional rights or violations of
§§ 1981, 1983, and 1985, must be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.
immunity also bars Hussein's claims that the State
violated the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, and the
federal criminal statute prohibiting theft of mail. Hussein
has not cited, and the court has been unable to find, any
statute or case law to show that the State has waived its
Eleventh Amendment immunity as to any of those claims.
Accordingly, Counts II, VII, XIV, and XV must also be
the State is immune from Hussein's claims that it
committed various state-law torts against him. Although the
Minnesota Tort Claims Act provides a limited waiver of the
State's sovereign immunity with regard to certain tort
claims, it does not waive the State's immunity from suit
in federal court. Minn. Stat. § 3.736, subdiv. 2;
see Hoeffner v. Univ. of Minn., 948, F.Supp. 1380,
1392-93 (D. Minn. 1996) (holding that the Minnesota Tort
Claims Act did not ...