Shaik v. Olmstead
- Susan Nelson
- 0:24-cv-01898
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Shaik v. Olmstead, Judge Nelson dismissed Shaik’s case as frivolous because criminal laws provide no private lawsuit and his factual theory lacked a legal basis.
The order dismissed Abdul Jameer Shaik’s action against Kelly L. Olmstead. The opinion does not state any additional effect on the pending state criminal proceedings.
What happened
Shaik v. Olmstead involved Abdul Jameer Shaik’s request for relief from Kelly L. Olmstead, whom the opinion identifies as a state-court judge. Shaik relied on two federal criminal laws and challenged documents connected to his pending state criminal proceedings.
The court said those criminal laws do not let private people bring civil lawsuits. It also found no reasonable factual basis for Shaik’s claims, including his reliance on documents from the “Moorish National Republic” and “Moroccan Empire.”
Judge Susan Richard Nelson dismissed the case as frivolous and ordered judgment entered. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Shaik v. Olmstead · No. 0:24-cv-01898
- Susan Nelson
- May 28, 2024
Background
Abdul Jameer Shaik brought an action seeking relief from Kelly L. Olmstead, whom the opinion identifies as a state-court judge. Shaik invoked 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242. The opinion also states that Shaik was the subject of pending state criminal proceedings and had filed documents associated with the “Moorish National Republic” and “Moroccan Empire” in those proceedings. Shaik regarded Olmstead as violating those documents.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a federal district court may dismiss an action on its own when the action is frivolous. A case is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.
The court found no arguable legal basis because Sections 241 and 242 are criminal laws that do not create a private right of action. A private right of action is the legal authority for a private person to bring a civil lawsuit under a statute. The court also found no arguable factual basis for Shaik’s requested relief. It stated that challenges to criminal prosecutions based on the types of documents Shaik submitted are routinely rejected as frivolous and found no reason to believe Minnesota law would treat the documents differently.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action as frivolous. Its order states: “This matter is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS,” and directs that judgment be entered accordingly. The opinion does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.