Siruk v. State of Minnesota

Background

Petro Siruk filed this civil action and an application to proceed without paying filing fees or costs. He later filed a motion to remove the State of Minnesota, the City of Minneapolis, and Hennepin County from the case. The court construed that filing as a motion to dismiss and treated the motion and its exhibits as amendments to the complaint so it could consider the factual allegations more fully.

Siruk’s complaint alleged that, in February 2018, people acting under governmental authority caused harm to his property, life, character, and health. His later filings appeared to challenge the result of a state-court civil case involving repossession of a leased dump truck, related contempt proceedings, and the conduct of Judge Francis Magill, court reporter Emily Branzovsky, a John Doe sheriff, and Hennepin County Sheriff Richard Stanek. Siruk also objected to his detention and jail-cell conditions, alleged violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and raised claims involving jury-trial and fair-hearing rights.

Review of the Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended granting the motion to remove the State of Minnesota, the City of Minneapolis, and Hennepin County; dismissing the action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); and denying the application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot. Siruk objected to that recommendation.

The district court reviewed specific objections under a fresh review standard and reviewed other portions for clear error. It overruled the objections and adopted the recommendation in its entirety.

Analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a court may dismiss a case filed by a person seeking to proceed without paying fees if the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The court applied the same standard used for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). A complaint must contain enough factual allegations to make liability plausible, although courts read a self-represented litigant’s filings liberally.

The court concluded that Siruk’s filings did not plausibly state a claim. To the extent he sought review of the state-court judgment, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred that type of federal-court review. To the extent the contempt proceedings were criminal, the court held that Siruk had not shown the prior proceedings had been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or otherwise called into question as required for a damages claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The court also upheld the recommendation concerning immunity. Claims for damages against state officials sued in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Claims against county officials in their official capacities require an alleged unconstitutional policy or pattern, which Siruk did not identify. Judge Magill had absolute judicial immunity because the challenged conduct occurred while he was performing judicial duties. Branzovsky had qualified immunity because the challenged conduct fell within her official duties. The court also found no indication that Judge Magill had performed nonjudicial acts or acted outside the circumstances protected by judicial immunity.

The court declined to review Siruk’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Fifth Amendment, and Seventh Amendment arguments because he had raised them for the first time in his objections. It stated that, even if reviewed, the treaty-based claims were not legally cognizable because the treaty was not self-executing and Congress had not enacted implementing legislation. It also stated that the claims against Judge Magill would fail because of the Eleventh Amendment and judicial immunity, and that the claim concerning partial transcripts was barred by qualified immunity.

Disposition

The court ordered that:

- Siruk’s objections to the recommendation were overruled. - The magistrate judge’s recommendation was adopted in its entirety. - Siruk’s motion to remove the State of Minnesota, the City of Minneapolis, and Hennepin County was granted, and those defendants were dismissed without prejudice. - The action was dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. - Siruk’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied as moot.

Judge Susan Richard Nelson directed that judgment be entered accordingly.