Ahmed v. Monroe

Background

Abdiaziz M. Ahmed, an inmate at the Cass County Jail in Fargo, North Dakota, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state law for violating constitutional rights. Ahmed alleged that unnamed Moorhead police officers unlawfully arrested him for second-degree assault in 2022 and for first-degree burglary in 2015. He alleged that both sets of charges were later dismissed. He also claimed that the Moorhead Police Department was “profiling” him and that he suffered lost wages and continuing emotional distress.

Ahmed named Shanon Monroe, identified as the Chief of Police for the City of Moorehead, Minnesota, and the Clay County State’s Attorney as defendants in their individual and official capacities. He requested money damages. Ahmed also applied to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Screening and Legal Standard

Because Ahmed was a prisoner, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court had previously found that Ahmed had no means or assets to pay an initial partial filing fee, but it warned him that his complaint contained factual and legal deficiencies and ordered him to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. Ahmed did not respond by the deadline.

Individual-Capacity Claims

The report states that a § 1983 claim requires facts showing both a constitutional violation and that a person acting under state law caused it. Ahmed did not allege particular facts describing what Monroe or the Clay County State’s Attorney personally did or failed to do. He also did not allege that either defendant was directly involved in the 2015 or 2022 arrests.

The report further explains that a supervisor cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because a subordinate allegedly committed a wrong. A supervisor may be liable if the supervisor knew of a pattern of unconstitutional acts and was deliberately indifferent to or authorized those acts, but Ahmed did not allege that either defendant knew about his arrests, that the arrests were part of a pattern, or that either defendant was deliberately indifferent to or authorized them. The report therefore recommends that the individual-capacity claims be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

Official-Capacity Claims

An official-capacity claim is treated as a claim against the government entity connected to the official. For such a claim, Ahmed needed to allege that a City of Moorehead or Clay County policy, custom, or deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise caused the alleged constitutional violations. The report concludes that he did not allege facts identifying such a policy, custom, or failure. It therefore recommends that the official-capacity claims also be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

The report additionally notes that the claim concerning the 2015 arrest is barred by Minnesota’s six-year statute of limitations for § 1983 actions. It states that the claim would fail as a matter of law even if Ahmed had otherwise pleaded a plausible claim concerning that arrest.

Recommended Disposition

Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended that Ahmed’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim. The recommendation does not decide whether the 2015 or 2022 arrests actually violated the Constitution; it concludes that Ahmed did not adequately connect either named defendant to the alleged violations and did not adequately plead government-entity liability.

The report also recommends denying Ahmed’s application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee as moot, requiring him to pay the unpaid $350 statutory filing fee in installments, and directing the Clerk of Court to notify the authorities at the institution where he is confined. The report and recommendation states that it is not a final order or judgment and is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. It says that specific written objections may be filed within 14 days after service.