Eighth Circuit affirms dismissal of § 1983 drug-planting claim under Heck v. Humphrey, which bars damages where invalidating the petty misdemeanor fine is necessary to prevail.
Outcome: Affirmed for appellee.
What happened
The facts of the case, in plain language.
Abdullah alleged that Weinzeirl planted drugs that were used to issue a citation for possession of marijuana.
Abdullah was issued a fine for the petty misdemeanor possession charge.
Abdullah admitted in the district court that there was no pending matter in state court.
What the court decided
Abdullah sued Deputy Sheriff Weinzeirl under federal civil rights law, claiming he planted marijuana used in the possession charge against Abdullah—a petty misdemeanor in Minnesota resulting in a fine. The trial court dismissed based on Heck v. Humphrey, a rule requiring that if you sue over actions causing a criminal conviction or sentence, you must first show the conviction was overturned by appeal, executive pardon, state court order, or federal court review. The appeals court upheld the dismissal because Abdullah would need the fine thrown out to win his lawsuit, but he admitted the fine had not been thrown out and his criminal case was closed. The appeals court rejected his arguments that Heck applies only to serious crimes, that his case should pause (though his criminal matter was already done), and that his inability to pursue federal habeas review meant Heck shouldn't apply.
- A § 1983 plaintiff whose claim would necessarily render invalid a fine imposed as the sentence for a petty misdemeanor must satisfy Heck v. Humphrey's favorable-termination requirement before the claim may proceed, regardless of whether state law characterizes the petty misdemeanor proceeding as civil rather than criminal. (*927)
- A § 1983 plaintiff's inability to obtain federal habeas corpus relief does not preclude application of Heck's favorable-termination rule.
- A Wallace v. Kato stay of a § 1983 civil action is unavailable where the plaintiff has judicially admitted that no criminal matter remains pending in state court.
How the court reached its decision
The court's reasoning, step by step.
Whether Heck v. Humphrey bars Abdullah's § 1983 drug-planting claim when the underlying conviction is a petty misdemeanor resulting in an unvacated fine. Abdullah's claim that Weinzeirl planted drugs would necessarily render invalid the fine—a 'sentence' under Minnesota law—imposed for his petty misdemeanor marijuana possession. Abdullah did not allege or show that the fine had been vacated or that the criminal matter had been resolved in his favor. Minnesota law confirms both that possession of a small amount of marijuana is a petty misdemeanor carrying a fine as its sentence and that appeal of a petty misdemeanor is criminal, not civil, defeating his argument that Heck is inapplicable to civil proceedings. The district court did not err in dismissing Abdullah's § 1983 claim under Heck because success on the claim would necessarily invalidate an unvacated sentence.
Whether Abdullah is entitled to a stay of his § 1983 civil action under Wallace v. Kato pending resolution of a state criminal matter. Abdullah admitted in the district court that no matter was pending in state court, eliminating the premise for a Wallace stay—an ongoing criminal proceeding whose outcome might eventually satisfy or moot the Heck bar. A judicial admission is conclusive upon the party who made it. Abdullah is not entitled to a stay because his binding judicial admission that no state criminal matter was pending forecloses the Wallace stay argument.
Whether Abdullah's ineligibility for federal habeas corpus relief removes his § 1983 claim from the scope of Heck's favorable-termination rule. The Eighth Circuit's decision in Entzi v. Redmann squarely held Heck's bar applicable to a habeas-ineligible former prisoner. Abdullah's policy objections to Heck are not grounds for a lower court to disregard controlling Supreme Court precedent, and his reliance on Jones v. Bock is misplaced because that decision addressed PLRA exhaustion of prison grievances, not the Heck favorable-termination rule. Habeas ineligibility does not preclude application of Heck; the favorable-termination requirement applies regardless of a plaintiff's ability to seek habeas relief.
Key quotes from the opinion
Notable passages from the opinion, in the court's own words.
Cases the court relied on
Earlier decisions the court cited as authority for its ruling.
Cases that cite this one
290 later published cases cite this decision. The 2 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Johnson v. Erickson (District Court, D. South Dakota 2021)
- Kader v. Dooley (District Court, D. South Dakota 2018)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Full opinion
The complete text of the court's opinion as published.
Opinion
Rarity Abdullah appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Hennepin County Deputy Sheriff Eathan Weinzeirl, alleging that Weinzeirl violated his constitutional rights by “planting” drugs that were used to issue a citation against him for possession of marijuana, a petty misdemeanor under Minnesota law. 2 After Abdullah admitted in the district court that he had been issued a fine and that there was no pending matter in state court, the district court granted Weinzeirl’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed Abdullah’s claim without prejudice under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because the complaint was silent as to the status of the citation.
On appeal, Abdullah argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claim because Heck only applies to criminal matters and a petty misdemeanor is a civil action under Minnesota law; because his claim should have been stayed in light of Wallace v. Kato, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 1098, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) (indicating that if plaintiff files civil action alleging false arrest and claim necessarily requires invalidation of anticipated future conviction, federal court should stay civil action until criminal case is terminated); because the court improperly considered matters outside the complaint and imposed a heightened pleading requirement on him; and because he has no other means to obtain federal review given his ineligibility for habeas relief. He also challenges the *927 validity of Heck, arguing that it encourages police to file false criminal charges to protect themselves from civil liability, and that it has been undermined by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 127 S.Ct. 910, 912, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007).
This court reviews de novo a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), assuming all factual allegations in the complaint as true. See Levy v. Ohl, 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2007). Heck provides that in order to recover damages for “harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” a section 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by an authorized state tribunal, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364. If a plaintiff cannot make the requisite showing, dismissal is appropriate. See id. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (district court must consider whether judgment in favor of plaintiff would necessarily imply invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would the complaint must be dismissed unless plaintiff can demonstrate that conviction or sentence has already been invalidated).
We conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Abdullah’s section 1983 claim under Heck, because success on his claim would necessarily render invalid the “sentence” of a fine imposed for his possession of marijuana, and because he did not allege or show that the fine had been invalidated or that his criminal petty-misdemeanor case had otherwise been resolved in his favor. See Minn.Stat. §§ 152.027, subd. 4 (person who unlawfully possesses small amount of marijuana is guilty of petty misdemeanor), 609.02, subd. 4a (“sentence of a fine of not more than $300 may be imposed” for petty misdemeanor); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-69, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (to survive Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion, factual allegations of complaint must do more than state speculative right to relief on assumption that all allegations in complaint are true; complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory); Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1172 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (claim based on assertion that evidence was unlawfully planted was barred by Heck)-, see also State v. Tessema, 515 N.W.2d 626, 627 (Minn.Ct.App. 1994) (appeal of petty misdemeanor is criminal, not civil).
We also conclude that Abdullah is not entitled to a stay under Wallace, because Abdullah admitted in the district court that there was no pending matter in state court. See Andrews v. St. Louis Joint Stock Land Bank, 127 F.2d 799, 804 (8th Cir. 1942) (judicial admission is conclusive upon party by whom it was made); see also LeMay v. U.S. Postal Sen., 450 F.3d 797, 799 (8th Cir. 2006) (court may affirm district court’s dismissal on any basis supported by record).
Finally, Abdullah’s inability to obtain habeas relief does not preclude application of Heck. Cf. Entzi v. Redmann, 485 F.3d 998, 1003 (8th Cir. 2007) (holding Heck’s favorable-termination rule barred claim of habeas-ineligible former prisoner). His policy disagreements with Heck are unavailing, and his reliance on Jones v. Bock is misplaced because that case addressed the unrelated issue of the exhaustion requirement regarding prison grievances under the PLRA. See Jones, 127 S.Ct. at 918-22.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting in part the report and recommendations of the Honorable Susan R. Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
. Abdullah asserted claims against other persons or entities who were dismissed over the course of the litigation, but only the dismissal of his claim against Weinzeirl is before this court.
Continue your research
- Cases extending or limiting Heck to petty offenses, infractions, and non-incarceration sentences
- Circuit court decisions applying Heck to habeas-ineligible plaintiffs after Muhammad v. Close
- Section 1983 claims premised on evidence planting or fabrication and Heck's favorable-termination bar
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.