Samaan v. Columbia Heights, The City of

Background

Saddam Samaan Daoud Samaan brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against The City of Columbia Heights, The Columbia Heights Police Department, Matt Markham, Paul Bonesteel, Justin Pletcher, and other unknown law-enforcement officers. He alleged that Columbia Heights police officers unlawfully obtained a hotel guest registry in 2012 without a warrant or probable cause. He claimed this conduct ultimately led to his arrest and conviction in a federal criminal case. He sought $10 million for his incarceration, emotional distress, and adverse immigration consequences.

The opinion states that a jury convicted Mr. Samaan in October 2017 of conspiring to commit bank fraud and aggravated identity theft. He was sentenced to 87 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release. His direct appeal and later motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 were unsuccessful. He stated that, after serving his sentence, he was taken into U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody and was detained in Arizona.

Court’s Analysis

Because Mr. Samaan applied to proceed without prepaying fees, the court reviewed whether the action stated a claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). That statute requires dismissal of an action filed without prepaying fees if the court determines that it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

The court applied Heck v. Humphrey, which generally prevents a person from obtaining damages under § 1983 for conduct that would make an existing conviction or sentence invalid unless that conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or otherwise called into question through the specified legal procedures. The court concluded that success on Mr. Samaan’s claims would undercut his earlier criminal conviction, and that the complaint did not suggest any favorable termination of that conviction.

Recommendation and Procedure

Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko recommended that Mr. Samaan’s § 1983 motion for judgment be dismissed without prejudice under § 1915(e)(2). The recommendation also states that his application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs be denied. The notice explains that the report and recommendation was not an order or judgment of the District Court and was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. It allowed a party to file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the report and recommendation.