Opinion
Civil. File No. 03-3655 (MJD/JGL)
December 8, 2003
Jeffrey Barnes, for plaintiff
W. Karl Hansen, for, and on behalf of, defendant John Tyndall
Bonnie P. Ulrich, for, and on behalf of, the United States and defendants Jeffrey Paulsen, Grant Beise, and Thomas Dunanski
MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND ORDER
I. BACKGROUND
This matter is before the Court on the defendants' Motions to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff, Jeffrey L. Barnes, asserts that a violation of the Fourth Amendment resulted when law enforcement officers conducted video surveillance of a residence at 1609 Lafond Ave. St. Paul, MN. In 1995, the surveillance was used in a trial that resulted in Barnes being convicted on several counts of conspiracy and other drug related offenses. Barnes seeks a "Declaratory Judgment against the . . . defendants, in that the FBI surveillance was unconstitutional."
At the outset, the Court notes that Barnes is a pro se litigant and his amended complaint is not easily understood. It is not readily apparent who Barnes is suing and under which statute. The named defendants in the amended complaint are the United States of America, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Grant Beise, a retired agent of the FBI, Thomas Dunaski, a Special Federal Officer, John Culhane, Jeffrey Paulsen, an Assistant United States Attorney, and John Tyndall, an agent with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. By his reply brief, Barnes has "completely" dismissed Tyndall and Paulsen from the lawsuit. Further, Barnes has dismissed Beise and Dunaski in their individual capacity.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Barnes is bringing this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the Fourth Amendment against the United States, the Department of Justice, and the FBI. The individual defendants are Culhane, Beise and Dunaski in their official capacity. For relief, Barnes asks this Court to "issue an order of `Declaratory Judgment' against the aforementioned defendants, in that the FBI surveillance was unconstitutional."
II. DISCUSSION
The law provides that,"[e] very person who, under color of any statute . . . of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured." 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (emphasis added). To survive this motion to dismiss, Barnes's complaint must simply allege that the defendants took actions, under state authority, that deprived him of the protections of a statute or the Constitution. Barnes has failed to make this claim. The claim against the United States, FBI, and Department of Justice are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because those defendants are clearly not state entities. Barnes's complaint fails to state that these federal entities were acting under the color of state law in the investigation or prosecution of Barnes. Likewise, Thomas Dunaski and John Culhane were officers on the FBI Drug Task Force, operating as federal agents. Special Agent Beise is also an agent with the FBI. Therefore, Barnes does not state a claim for which relief can be granted because he asserts a statute that protects against deprivations of constitutional rights caused by states against federal entities and agents. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
Further, the complaint must be dismissed because it is barred by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 475 (1994). In Heck, the Court held that, "[i]n order to recover damages for . . . harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254." Barnes of course can not make the requisite demonstration. In fact, to the contrary, his conviction has been upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.U.S. v. Shaw, 94 F.3d 438 (8th Cir. 1996).
The Court recognizes that Barnes does not seek damages but a declaratory judgment; nonetheless the principle holding of Heck applies because Barnes seeks an Order that would undermine his conviction. A declaratory judgment that the FBI surveillance was a violation of the Fourth Amendment would render Barnes's conviction invalid because the conviction would be based on evidence that should have been excluded. Because the relief sought necessarily calls into question the validity of Barnes's imprisonment, the § 1983 claim must be dismissed.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [Docket No. 36] is GRANTED.