McCoy v. Marshall
Gregory Lynn McCoy v. Jeff Marshall, Deputy; Darrin Zastera, Deputy; and Hennepin County Sherriff Department, all sued in their individual and official capacities
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:25-cv-03686
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In McCoy v. Marshall, Judge Blackwell dismissed Counts One and Two with prejudice, Count Three without prejudice, and denied fee waiver and counsel.
Gregory Lynn McCoy’s claims against Jeff Marshall, Darrin Zastera, and the Hennepin County Sherriff Department were dismissed as stated in the order. McCoy was also denied fee-waiver treatment and appointed counsel and was ordered to pay the unpaid filing-fee balance.
What happened
In Gregory Lynn McCoy v. Jeff Marshall, McCoy challenged the seizure, search, and sale of his vehicle, claiming that an allegedly undertrained police dog was involved. He also brought two other claims, but the opinion does not describe all their underlying facts.
The court reviewed McCoy’s objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss the case. It concluded that McCoy could not relitigate issues about the dog’s certification because independent probable cause supported the vehicle search and earlier findings about statements in the warrant application resolved those issues against him.
Judge Blackwell overruled the objections and accepted the recommendation. Counts One and Two were dismissed with prejudice; Count Three was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The court also denied McCoy’s application to proceed without prepaying fees and his request for appointed counsel, and ordered him to pay the unpaid $326.17 filing-fee balance.
The detailed version
- McCoy v. Marshall · No. 0:25-cv-03686
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Jan. 28, 2026
Background
Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard issued a November 13, 2025 Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal after screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Gregory Lynn McCoy, who represented himself, filed objections.
Count One asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated the Fourth Amendment by illegally seizing, searching, and selling McCoy’s vehicle based on a search by an allegedly undertrained police dog. The opinion states that Count Two was based on 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and that this statute provides no private right of action. The opinion identifies Count Three’s dismissal as jurisdictional but does not describe the claim’s underlying facts in the order.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected McCoy’s argument that the recommendation improperly treated Count One as barred by the rule from Heck v. Humphrey. The court explained that the recommendation did not find Count One barred on that basis. Instead, the court held that McCoy could not prevail on Count One as pleaded because the relevant Fourth Amendment issues concerning the dog-certification allegations had already been resolved against him.
The court identified two earlier resolutions: independent probable cause supported the vehicle search, making the certification irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment analysis, and the officers’ statements about the certification in the warrant application had been found true. The court stated that McCoy could not relitigate either issue. It also held that McCoy could not add new theories, arguments, or claims through his objections to the recommendation.
McCoy did not specifically object to the recommendations concerning Count Two, Count Three, his application to proceed without prepaying fees, or his request for appointed counsel. After reviewing those issues for clear error, the court found no clear error.
Disposition
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell overruled McCoy’s objections and accepted the Report and Recommendation. The court ordered that Counts One and Two be dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It ordered that Count Three be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The court denied McCoy’s application to proceed without prepaying fees and denied his motion to appoint counsel.
The court also ordered McCoy to pay the unpaid $326.17 balance of the statutory filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), with the Clerk directed to notify the authorities at the institution where McCoy was confined.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.