Abdikarim v. Torgerson

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota September 30, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ZAKARIYA ABDIKARIM,
Civil No. 24-2188 (JRT/DTS)
Plaintiff,

v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ADAM TORGERSON and SHANNON DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO
MONROE, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Defendants.

Zakariya Abdikarim, Cass County Jail, 450 Thirty-Fourth Street Southwest,
Fargo, ND 55103, pro se Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Zakariya Abdikarim seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on his
appeal of the Court’s order dismissing this action without prejudice. Because it finds his
appeal to be frivolous, the Court will deny his request.
Abdikarim originally filed an action in the District of North Dakota against Detective
Adam Torgerson, Moorhead Chief of Police Shannon Monroe, and Clay County1
(“Defendants”), alleging that the Defendants did not have probable cause to search his
storage unit in Moorhead, Minnesota. (Compl. at 5, May 31, 2024, Docket No. 6.) After

1 Abdikarim does not name Clay County in the caption of his Complaint as a Defendant
but references a “claim against the County of Clay MN” in his claims. (Compl. at 1, 3, 6, May 31,
2024, Docket No. 6.) Construing the Complaint liberally, the Court will include Clay County as a
Defendant for the limited purpose of this application.
the case was transferred to the District of Minnesota, Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz
issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) that recommended the Court deny

Abdikarim’s motion to proceed IFP. (R. &. R. at 3, July 22, 2024, Docket No. 11.) The
Magistrate Judge did so on the grounds that Abdikarim’s Complaint rested on bare
conclusory statements and that he did not adequately plead facts establishing liability for
Clay County. (Id. at 2–3.) With no objections to the R&R, the Court adopted it in full and

dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B).  (Order 
Adopting R. & R. at 1, Sept. 5, 2024, Docket No. 13.)  Abdikarim then filed a notice of 
appeal to the Eighth Circuit.  (Notice of Appeal to 8th Cir., Sept. 11, 2024, Docket No. 15; 
Notice of Appeal to 8th Cir., Sept. 16, 2024, Docket No. 17.)  He now seeks leave to proceed 

IFP on appeal.  (Appl. to Proceed IFP on Appeal, Sept. 11, 2024, Docket No. 16; Appl. to 
Proceed IFP on Appeal (“2nd IFP Appl.”), Sept. 16, 2024, Docket No. 18.).2  The Court will 
deny his request.                                                         

    A litigant who seeks to be excused from paying the filing fee for an appeal in a 
federal case may apply for IFP status under

28 U.S.C. § 1915

.  To qualify for IFP status, the 
litigant must demonstrate that they cannot afford to pay the full filing fee.

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(1).  Even if a litigant is found to be indigent, however, IFP status will be denied 

if the Court finds that the litigant’s appeal is not taken in good faith.

Id.

 § 1915(a)(3).  



    2 Abdikarim submitted two IFP applications that were functionally the same application.  
Both will be denied.                                                      
Good faith in this context is judged by an objective standard and not by the appellant’s 
subjective point of view.  Coppedge v. United States,

369 U.S. 438

, 444–45 (1962).  To 

determine whether an appeal is taken in good faith, the Court must decide whether the 
claims to be decided on appeal are factually or legally frivolous.  See

id. at 445

.  An appeal 
is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”  Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325

 (1989).                                                 

    Here, though Abdikarim has demonstrated his indigence, his appeal is frivolous.  
As the Magistrate Judge noted in the R&R, Abdikarim’s underlying claims are frivolous 
because “[t]he entire complaint rests upon a single conclusory allegation—that there was 

an absence of probable cause for the search at issue, either because the information in 
the warrant did not suffice to establish probable cause or because that information was 
fraudulent.”  (R. & R. at 2.)  But those statements are mere legal conclusions, and even at 
the pleading stage, a litigant is required to plead facts that, if later proven true, would 

permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude the search was unlawful.  Quinn v. Ocwen Fed. 
Bank FSB,

470 F.3d 1240, 1244

 (8th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he complaint must contain sufficient 
facts, as opposed to mere conclusions, to satisfy the legal requirements of the claim to 
avoid dismissal.”).                                                       

    Abdikarim’s case does not improve in his renewed IFP applications.  Indeed, the 
only issue he raises for the Eighth Circuit to review is “the way the court handle [sic] the 
matter.”  (2™  |FP Appl. at  1.)  Even construed  liberally, this is not  a good faith  appeal 
because it lacks an arguable basis both in law and in fact. 
     Because  it finds the  appeal to  be frivolous, the Court will  deny the  motions to 
proceed IFP on appeal.

ORDER

     Based on the foregoing, and  all the files,  records, and  proceedings herein,  IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Applications to Proceed  In Forma  Pauperis on Appeal 
[Docket Nos. 16, 18] are DENIED. 

DATED:  September 30, 2024                        date, M. (etdain 
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.                         JOHN R. TUNHEIM 
                                            United States District Judge 

                                    -4-

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ZAKARIYA ABDIKARIM,
Civil No. 24-2188 (JRT/DTS)
Plaintiff,

v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ADAM TORGERSON and SHANNON DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO
MONROE, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Defendants.

Zakariya Abdikarim, Cass County Jail, 450 Thirty-Fourth Street Southwest,
Fargo, ND 55103, pro se Plaintiff.

dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B).  (Order 
Adopting R. & R. at 1, Sept. 5, 2024, Docket No. 13.)  Abdikarim then filed a notice of 
appeal to the Eighth Circuit.  (Notice of Appeal to 8th Cir., Sept. 11, 2024, Docket No. 15; 
Notice of Appeal to 8th Cir., Sept. 16, 2024, Docket No. 17.)  He now seeks leave to proceed 

IFP on appeal.  (Appl. to Proceed IFP on Appeal, Sept. 11, 2024, Docket No. 16; Appl. to 
Proceed IFP on Appeal (“2nd IFP Appl.”), Sept. 16, 2024, Docket No. 18.).2  The Court will 
deny his request.                                                         

    A litigant who seeks to be excused from paying the filing fee for an appeal in a 
federal case may apply for IFP status under

28 U.S.C. § 1915

.  To qualify for IFP status, the 
litigant must demonstrate that they cannot afford to pay the full filing fee.

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(1).  Even if a litigant is found to be indigent, however, IFP status will be denied 

if the Court finds that the litigant’s appeal is not taken in good faith.

Id.

 § 1915(a)(3).  



    2 Abdikarim submitted two IFP applications that were functionally the same application.  
Both will be denied.                                                      
Good faith in this context is judged by an objective standard and not by the appellant’s 
subjective point of view.  Coppedge v. United States,

369 U.S. 438

, 444–45 (1962).  To 

determine whether an appeal is taken in good faith, the Court must decide whether the 
claims to be decided on appeal are factually or legally frivolous.  See

id. at 445

.  An appeal 
is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”  Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325

 (1989).                                                 

    Here, though Abdikarim has demonstrated his indigence, his appeal is frivolous.  
As the Magistrate Judge noted in the R&R, Abdikarim’s underlying claims are frivolous 
because “[t]he entire complaint rests upon a single conclusory allegation—that there was 

an absence of probable cause for the search at issue, either because the information in 
the warrant did not suffice to establish probable cause or because that information was 
fraudulent.”  (R. & R. at 2.)  But those statements are mere legal conclusions, and even at 
the pleading stage, a litigant is required to plead facts that, if later proven true, would 

permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude the search was unlawful.  Quinn v. Ocwen Fed. 
Bank FSB,

470 F.3d 1240, 1244

 (8th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he complaint must contain sufficient 
facts, as opposed to mere conclusions, to satisfy the legal requirements of the claim to 
avoid dismissal.”).                                                       

    Abdikarim’s case does not improve in his renewed IFP applications.  Indeed, the 
only issue he raises for the Eighth Circuit to review is “the way the court handle [sic] the 
matter.”  (2™  |FP Appl. at  1.)  Even construed  liberally, this is not  a good faith  appeal 
because it lacks an arguable basis both in law and in fact. 
     Because  it finds the  appeal to  be frivolous, the Court will  deny the  motions to 
proceed IFP on appeal.

ORDER

     Based on the foregoing, and  all the files,  records, and  proceedings herein,  IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Applications to Proceed  In Forma  Pauperis on Appeal 
[Docket Nos. 16, 18] are DENIED. 

DATED:  September 30, 2024                        date, M. (etdain 
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.                         JOHN R. TUNHEIM 
                                            United States District Judge 

                                    -4-

Reference

Status: Unknown