Markham v. Tolbert

Background

Oji Konata Markham, representing himself, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 21 defendants in their individual and official capacities. The defendants included police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, judges, private individuals, two police departments, and the Dakota County Judicial Center. Markham’s claims arose from his 2016 arrest and Minnesota burglary conviction and challenged alleged misconduct involving the arrest, prosecution, evidence, legal representation, judicial rulings, witness testimony, and entry into his home.

Markham sought monetary, compensatory, and punitive damages, exoneration from the charges, forced resignations of the prosecutors, and several forms of additional relief. Before the defendants responded, the court referred the complaint to a magistrate judge for the required initial review of a prisoner’s civil-rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That review permits dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from a defendant protected by immunity.

Report and recommendation and objections

Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson recommended dismissing all but one claim. She recommended allowing Markham’s claim against A. Tolbert, B. Miller, C. Glirbas, Officer 193, S. Hilyar, and M. Shepard to proceed. That claim alleged that the officers entered Markham’s home and arrested him without a warrant, probable cause, or emergency circumstances, violating the Fourth Amendment.

She recommended dismissing the other 15 defendants without prejudice. Her reasons included that some claims improperly challenged the validity of Markham’s still-valid conviction, some were inadequately pleaded, some defendants were immune from suit, some defendants were not government actors who could be sued under Section 1983, and one state-law claim was filed too late.

Markham objected generally to the recommended dismissals, but the court found that he did not identify specific factual or legal errors in the recommendations concerning most of the defendants. The court therefore reviewed those portions for clear error and stated that it would reach the same result even under the more demanding standard of fresh review.

Claims allowed to proceed

The court allowed the unlawful-arrest claim against Tolbert, Miller, Glirbas, Officer 193, Hilyar, and Shepard to proceed at the screening stage. Taking Markham’s allegations as true for that limited review, the court found that he plausibly alleged that the officers arrested him inside his home without a warrant or emergency circumstances. The court explained that a search or seizure inside a home without a warrant is generally unreasonable unless supported by probable cause and emergency circumstances.

The court also concluded that the claim was not necessarily barred by the rule in Heck v. Humphrey. That rule generally prevents a person from using a damages action under Section 1983 to challenge conduct that would necessarily invalidate an existing conviction or sentence. The court reasoned that Markham could potentially prove that his arrest was unlawful while his burglary conviction remained valid. The court adopted the recommendation as to this claim and held that it could proceed.

Claims dismissed

The court dismissed without prejudice the claims against Denise Urmann and Rawlings. Markham alleged that they helped locate his address and vehicle and issued an alert seeking his whereabouts, but he did not plausibly allege that those actions violated the Fourth Amendment. The court stated that a person generally has no constitutional privacy right in a home address or motor-vehicle-record information and that the alleged alert did not itself establish an unconstitutional seizure.

The court dismissed without prejudice the claims against Jennifer S. Bovitz, Dain Olson, and Heather D. Pipenhagen. Markham alleged prosecutorial misconduct, withholding evidence, improper charging and argument, and actions involving probable cause. The court held that the prosecutors were protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity for their prosecution-related conduct. It also held that the claims were barred by the rule in Heck because they challenged matters that would call the validity of Markham’s conviction into question. The court further concluded that Bovitz’s alleged investigative conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights.

The court dismissed without prejudice the claim against Ryan Olson, a detective. Markham alleged that Olson presented improper hearsay and other prejudicial evidence at trial. The court held that, even assuming the evidence was inadmissible, the detective did not violate the Sixth Amendment merely by presenting it; the alleged improper admission was the trial judge’s act.

The court dismissed without prejudice the claims against Catherine Turner and Sara L. Martin, Markham’s trial and appellate lawyers. The court explained that ineffective-assistance claims challenging a still-valid conviction are barred when brought as Section 1983 damages claims. It also held that appointed or private defense lawyers are not government actors for purposes of Section 1983.

The court dismissed without prejudice the claims against Richelle M. Wahi and David L. Knutson, the state judges involved in Markham’s criminal proceedings. The court held that judges are immune from suit for actions taken in their judicial capacity when they have proper jurisdiction. It also held that the alleged judicial conduct challenged the validity of Markham’s conviction and was barred by the rule in Heck, and that Brady disclosure duties apply to prosecutors rather than judges.

The court dismissed without prejudice the claims against Oxana Harris and Diana Kladum. Markham challenged Harris’s statements and trial testimony and alleged that Kladum improperly allowed police to enter his home. The court held that Harris was protected by immunity for her trial testimony, that neither private individual was shown to be a government actor or to have conspired with government officials, and that claims attacking the validity of the conviction were barred by the rule in Heck. The court also held that the claim under Minnesota Statute § 504B.211 was filed outside the applicable two-year limitations period. The opinion notes that Markham corrected Kladum’s name in his objections to Diana Joy Kaldun, but the final order lists Diana Kladum.

The court dismissed without prejudice the claims against the Brooklyn Park Police Department, the Mendota Heights Police Department, and the Dakota County Judicial Center. Even treating the claims as claims against the relevant cities and county, the court found that Markham had not plausibly alleged that an official municipal policy caused his injuries. The court also held that these entities could not be held responsible merely for employees’ alleged misconduct.

Procedural directives and final order

The court noted that five served defendants—A. Tolbert, B. Miller, C. Glirbas, S. Hilyar, and M. Shepard—had not filed responses by the earlier deadline. It ordered Markham to give those defendants or their lawyers written notice, with a copy of the order, that they must answer or otherwise respond within 30 days. Markham had to file proof of notice within 15 days. If the defendants still did not respond, Markham could apply for entry of default within the time limits stated in the order, and could then seek default judgment after the clerk entered default.

The court adopted Magistrate Judge Thorson’s report and recommendation in its entirety, overruled Markham’s objections, dismissed the 15 specified defendants without prejudice under Section 1915A, and ordered compliance with the procedural requirements. The court denied Markham’s motion for default judgment without prejudice as unripe because the order gave the defendants another opportunity to respond.