Smith v. Leslie
- Susan Nelson
- 0:18-cv-03478
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Smith v. Leslie, Judge Nelson overruled objections, denied fee-free filing, and dismissed the civil-rights action without prejudice under a rule protecting criminal judgments.
Joshua-Bernard Smith’s civil-rights action against Tim Leslie and Ryan Malcolm was dismissed without prejudice, and his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied.
What happened
In Smith v. Leslie, Joshua-Bernard Smith, representing himself, claimed that law enforcement violated his rights during his May 4, 2018 arrest. He alleged racial profiling, kidnapping, and unlawful seizure of his car and more than $13,000, and sought the return of his property and money damages. His arrest led to criminal charges, and a jury later found him guilty of three felonies.
The court agreed with the magistrate judge that Smith could not pursue this civil-rights lawsuit while his criminal judgment remained in place. The court explained that a civil case cannot proceed when winning it would necessarily undermine a criminal conviction or confinement, unless that judgment has been overturned or otherwise invalidated. The court also rejected Smith’s additional objections about jurisdiction, equal treatment, and his claim that he was a corporation.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Smith’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied Smith’s application to proceed without paying court fees, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Leslie · No. 0:18-cv-03478
- Susan Nelson
- Mar. 6, 2019
Background
Joshua-Bernard Smith filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Tim Leslie and Ryan Malcolm. Smith represented himself. He alleged that law enforcement violated his right to travel and his right to be free from racial discrimination when he was arrested on May 4, 2018. He claimed that the arrest was based solely on racial profiling, that it amounted to kidnapping, and that officers unlawfully seized property, including a car and more than $13,000 in cash. He requested the return of his property and compensatory and punitive damages.
The arrest resulted in criminal charges. After a January 2019 jury trial, Smith was found guilty of one count of possessing a controlled substance and two counts of driving while impaired. The opinion states that sentencing was scheduled for March 2019.
Report and recommendation
Smith applied to proceed without paying filing fees. Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau determined that Smith qualified financially for that status but recommended denying the application and dismissing the complaint because it failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Smith objected to that recommendation.
Court’s analysis
The district court reviewed the challenged portions of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court explained that, under the rule from Heck v. Humphrey, a person generally cannot maintain a civil case if success would necessarily cast doubt on the validity of an otherwise valid criminal conviction or confinement. The court stated that Smith’s criminal judgment had not been expunged or vacated. It therefore agreed that Smith could not seek relief from his arrest under § 1983 at that time.
The court also addressed Smith’s other objections. It found that his assertions that the court lacked jurisdiction, that the magistrate judge failed to treat him like other United States citizens, and that he was a corporation lacked factual or legal support. The court overruled those objections.
Disposition
The court overruled Smith’s objections, adopted Magistrate Judge Rau’s report and recommendation in its entirety, denied Smith’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.