Demry v. Ali
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:26-cv-03789
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
Demry v. Ali was dismissed without prejudice after Judge Tostrud found the complaint insufficient, and Demry’s IFP application was denied.
Phillip Eugene Demry’s action was dismissed without prejudice, and his application to proceed without paying the filing fee was denied. The opinion did not resolve the alleged state-law injuries on their merits.
What happened
In Phillip Eugene Demry v. Ahmed Ali, Mrs. Ali, and Safari Properties LLC, Demry asked to proceed without paying the filing fee and alleged disability discrimination, eviction, assault, emotional distress, lockout, and damage to his property.
The court found that the complaint did not provide enough facts to support a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It also found that the parties were not diverse citizens, so the court lacked a basis to hear the state-law claims based on diversity, and it declined to hear those claims alongside the federal claim.
Chief Judge Eric C. Tostrud dismissed the action without prejudice under the federal law governing review of claims filed by people seeking to proceed without paying fees, and denied Demry’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Demry v. Ali · No. 0:26-cv-03789
- Eric Tostrud
- Sept. 8, 2026
Background
Phillip Eugene Demry filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that the defendants violated his civil rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by denying reasonable accommodations, evicting him without due process, and physically assaulting him. In a later filing, Demry alleged that, from January through February 2026, the defendants inflicted emotional distress, physically assaulted him, illegally locked him out, and damaged or destroyed all of his personal property. The court treated the complaint and later filing together as the operative pleading.
Federal Claim
The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal when a person seeking to proceed without paying fees fails to state a claim for relief. The court explained that allegations are accepted as true at this stage, but they must contain enough facts to make a claim plausible rather than speculative.
Demry identified the ADA as the basis for federal-question jurisdiction and generally referred to himself as having physical and mental disabilities, including post-traumatic stress disorder. The court held that he did not provide enough facts about the events leading to his eviction. He also did not allege facts showing that the defendants were subject to suit under the ADA or that the eviction or other conditions resulted from his disabilities. The court therefore found the ADA claim conclusory and insufficient.
State-Law Claims and Jurisdiction
The court understood Demry also to seek restitution and damages for assault, property damage, unlawful eviction, and mistreatment of a vulnerable adult. It stated that these claims arise under state law. Diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because Demry alleged that he and the defendants were citizens of Minnesota, meaning the parties were not completely diverse. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims because Demry did not have a valid federal claim.
Disposition
The court ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It separately ordered that Demry’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee be denied. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.