Thomas-El v. Kekic

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota

Thomas-El v. Kekic

Trial Court Opinion

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                   DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Solomon Thomas-El,                 Case No. 24-CV-3476 (NEB/SGE)        

              PLAINTIFF,                                                

v.                                          ORDER                       

Tarek Kekic, Nhia Thor, and Hennepin                                    
County Self-Insured,                                                    

              DEFENDANTS.                                               
   Plaintiff Solomon Thomas-El (also known as Soloman Tomas) has applied for in 
forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. See Appl. to Proceed in Dist. Ct. Without Prepaying Fees 
or Costs, ECF No. 2 (“IFP Application”). Because Thomas-El is a prisoner, see 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(h), the IFP Application falls under 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b), which mandates an initial 
partial filing fee for prisoners seeking IFP status in civil actions. This fee is 20 percent of 
the greater of (1) the average monthly deposits to the plaintiff’s facility trust account in 
the 6 months immediately before the complaint’s filing, or (2) the average balance in the 
plaintiff’s account during the same period. See 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b)(1).   
   The Certificate of Authorized Prison Official that Thomas-El has submitted, see 
ECF No. 11 (“Certificate”), indicates that he must submit an initial partial filing fee of 
$4.00.1 This action will not proceed until Thomas-El pays this fee. If he fails to pay 

1 The Certificate states that Thomas-El’s average monthly deposits during the preceding 
6-month period were $20.00, while his average balance during the same period was 
$9.50. See Cert. 1. Because the deposits amount exceeds the balance amount, Thomas-
within 21 days of this Order’s date, the Court will consider the action abandoned and 
recommend its dismissal without prejudice for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 
41(b).                                                                    

   Finally, the Court offers Thomas-El the following warnings:          
            If Thomas-El proceeds with this action by paying the $4.00 initial 
             partial filing fee, he will have to pay the remaining $351.00 of the 
             $350.00 statutory filing fee in installments. Officials at his 
             confinement facility will be informed of this and authorized to 
             withdraw funds from his account to remit to the Court, as per 
             § 1915(b), regardless of the action’s outcome.             
            Upon payment of the initial partial filing fee, the Court will review 
             the Complaint to determine if it states a viable claim within the 
             Court’s jurisdiction.2 If the Court finds the Complaint frivolous or 
             malicious, or that it fails to state a claim for relief, Thomas-El will 
             incur a “strike” under 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(g). Accumulating three 
             strikes will significantly restrict his ability to proceed IFP in federal 
             court.                                                     

El’s initial partial filing fee, under 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b)(1), is 20 percent of the average 
deposits, or $4.00.                                                       
2 Thomas-El should consider carefully whether to proceed; the Complaint has significant 
problems. It appears his claims, related to a January 2024 traffic stop, would undercut his 
conviction in State v. Tomas, No. 27-CR-24-1952 (Minn. Dist. Ct.). To bring such claims, 
a plaintiff generally must show a “favorable termination” of the relevant conviction. See, 
e.g., Mitchell v. Kirchmeier, 
28 F.4th 888, 895
 (8th Cir. 2022) (“[T]he Supreme Court [has] 
held that a district court must dismiss a § 1983 claim if ‘a judgment in favor of the plaintiff 
would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,’ unless the plaintiff 
proves ‘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.’”) (quoting 
Heck v. Humphrey, 
512 U.S. 477, 487
 (1994)). There is no indication of such a favorable 
termination here. Given this and other potential issues that could arise as the case proceeds, 
Thomas-El may wish to pause before committing $350.00 to this litigation. 

ORDER

   Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT 
IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:                                                   

        1.   Plaintiff Solomon Thomas-El must pay an initial partial filing fee of 
             at least $4.00 within 21 days of this Order’s date.        
        2.   Should Thomas-El fail to pay the initial partial filing fee, the Court 
             will recommend dismissing this action without prejudice for failure 
             to prosecute.                                              
Dated: October 10, 2024         s/ Shannon G. Elkins                    
                                SHANNON G. ELKINS                       
                                United States Magistrate Judge          
                                Thomas-El v. Kekic                      
                                Case no. 24-CV-3476 (NEB/SGE)           

Trial Court Opinion

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                   DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Solomon Thomas-El,                 Case No. 24-CV-3476 (NEB/SGE)        

              PLAINTIFF,                                                

v.                                          ORDER                       

Tarek Kekic, Nhia Thor, and Hennepin                                    
County Self-Insured,                                                    

              DEFENDANTS.                                               
   Plaintiff Solomon Thomas-El (also known as Soloman Tomas) has applied for in 
forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. See Appl. to Proceed in Dist. Ct. Without Prepaying Fees 
or Costs, ECF No. 2 (“IFP Application”). Because Thomas-El is a prisoner, see 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(h), the IFP Application falls under 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b), which mandates an initial 
partial filing fee for prisoners seeking IFP status in civil actions. This fee is 20 percent of 
the greater of (1) the average monthly deposits to the plaintiff’s facility trust account in 
the 6 months immediately before the complaint’s filing, or (2) the average balance in the 
plaintiff’s account during the same period. See 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b)(1).   
   The Certificate of Authorized Prison Official that Thomas-El has submitted, see 
ECF No. 11 (“Certificate”), indicates that he must submit an initial partial filing fee of 
$4.00.1 This action will not proceed until Thomas-El pays this fee. If he fails to pay 

1 The Certificate states that Thomas-El’s average monthly deposits during the preceding 
6-month period were $20.00, while his average balance during the same period was 
$9.50. See Cert. 1. Because the deposits amount exceeds the balance amount, Thomas-
within 21 days of this Order’s date, the Court will consider the action abandoned and 
recommend its dismissal without prejudice for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 
41(b).                                                                    

   Finally, the Court offers Thomas-El the following warnings:          
            If Thomas-El proceeds with this action by paying the $4.00 initial 
             partial filing fee, he will have to pay the remaining $351.00 of the 
             $350.00 statutory filing fee in installments. Officials at his 
             confinement facility will be informed of this and authorized to 
             withdraw funds from his account to remit to the Court, as per 
             § 1915(b), regardless of the action’s outcome.             
            Upon payment of the initial partial filing fee, the Court will review 
             the Complaint to determine if it states a viable claim within the 
             Court’s jurisdiction.2 If the Court finds the Complaint frivolous or 
             malicious, or that it fails to state a claim for relief, Thomas-El will 
             incur a “strike” under 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(g). Accumulating three 
             strikes will significantly restrict his ability to proceed IFP in federal 
             court.                                                     

El’s initial partial filing fee, under 
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b)(1), is 20 percent of the average 
deposits, or $4.00.                                                       
2 Thomas-El should consider carefully whether to proceed; the Complaint has significant 
problems. It appears his claims, related to a January 2024 traffic stop, would undercut his 
conviction in State v. Tomas, No. 27-CR-24-1952 (Minn. Dist. Ct.). To bring such claims, 
a plaintiff generally must show a “favorable termination” of the relevant conviction. See, 
e.g., Mitchell v. Kirchmeier, 
28 F.4th 888, 895
 (8th Cir. 2022) (“[T]he Supreme Court [has] 
held that a district court must dismiss a § 1983 claim if ‘a judgment in favor of the plaintiff 
would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,’ unless the plaintiff 
proves ‘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.’”) (quoting 
Heck v. Humphrey, 
512 U.S. 477, 487
 (1994)). There is no indication of such a favorable 
termination here. Given this and other potential issues that could arise as the case proceeds, 
Thomas-El may wish to pause before committing $350.00 to this litigation. 

ORDER

   Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT 
IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:                                                   

        1.   Plaintiff Solomon Thomas-El must pay an initial partial filing fee of 
             at least $4.00 within 21 days of this Order’s date.        
        2.   Should Thomas-El fail to pay the initial partial filing fee, the Court 
             will recommend dismissing this action without prejudice for failure 
             to prosecute.                                              
Dated: October 10, 2024         s/ Shannon G. Elkins                    
                                SHANNON G. ELKINS                       
                                United States Magistrate Judge          
                                Thomas-El v. Kekic                      
                                Case no. 24-CV-3476 (NEB/SGE)           

Reference

Status
Unknown