Braun v. State of Minnesota et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: 7 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED IN FULL; 1 Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 3 Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs and 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel are DENIED AS MOOT. See order for payment obligation information. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Laura M. Provinzino on 11/25/2024. (TJC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
NATHAN CHRISTOPHER BRAUN,

Case No. 24-cv-3596 (LMP/TNL)

Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MINNESOTA, BENTON
COUNTY, JEFFREY R. RAUPP,
KATHLEEN REUTER, DAN MILLER,
SAM DOUGLESS, HANNA M.
EFFERFIELD, ALEXANDRA KOSIBA,
and JAQUELINE CROSS,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the October 24, 2024 Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung, which
recommends dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff Nathan Christopher Braun’s (“Braun”)
action (ECF No. 7) brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The R&R also recommends denying
Braun’s Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 3 (“IFP
Application”)) and Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 5), and directing the
institution where Braun is incarcerated to collect and remit monthly payments from him
for this action’s filing fee in the manner set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). See ECF No. 7
at 4. Braun objected to the R&R (ECF No. 9), so this Court reviews the R&R’s conclusions
de novo, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In July 2017, Braun was convicted of third-degree criminal sexual conduct in
Minnesota state court and sentenced to ninety-one months’ imprisonment. See State v.
Braun, No. 05-cr-16-1323, Index No. 54, 60 (Minn. Dist. Ct. July 31, 2017). Braun’s
conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and has been repeatedly upheld under collateral
review. See, e.g., State v. Braun, No. A17-1889, 2018 WL 4201208, at *5 (Minn. Ct. App.
Sept. 4, 2018) (affirming conviction on direct appeal); Braun v. State, No. A19-0924, 2020
WL 994759, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2020) (affirming denial of petition for
postconviction relief); Braun v. State, No. A20-1407, 2021 WL 3136497, at *2 (Minn. Ct.
App. Jul. 19, 2021) (same); Braun v. Schnell, No. 21-cv-2561 (PJS/ECW), 2022 WL
17543016, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 8, 2022) (denying petition for a writ of habeas corpus).
Braun is currently incarcerated at the Minnesota Correctional Facility–Stillwater. See ECF
No. 1 at 7.
On September 9, 2024, Braun brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Benton County, the State of Minnesota, the district court judge who presided over
his criminal case, attorneys involved in his criminal case (including county attorneys and
at least one of Braun’s own former attorneys), the victim of Braun’s crime, and Alexandra
Kosiba and Jaqueline Cross, who were witnesses at his trial. See ECF No. 1 at 1–3; see
also Braun, 2018 WL 4201208, at *2. The gist of Braun’s complaint is that he is innocent,
and that Defendants’ conduct resulted in his unconstitutional conviction. See generally
ECF No. 1 at 1–7. Braun seeks monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief. Id. at 5–7.

2

ANALYSIS
In lieu of paying this action’s filing fee, Braun submitted an IFP Application, which
indicates that Braun is financially eligible to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See ECF
No. 3. But a court must dismiss an action when an IFP applicant has filed a complaint that
is “frivolous” or “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). A frivolous claim “lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Braun’s Section 1983 action seeks monetary damages, as well as declaratory and
injunctive relief, for his allegedly unconstitutional conviction and imprisonment. But to
recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, a Section
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.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).

This “favorable-

termination” rule—as it is called—also applies to Section 1983 claims seeking equitable
relief “if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement
or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81–82 (2005).
Here, Braun necessarily seeks to “demonstrate the invalidity of [his] confinement”
because he asks the Court to determine that he is innocent and was wrongfully convicted
in violation of his constitutional rights. ECF No. 1 at 5–7. Therefore, Braun must satisfy
Heck’s favorable-termination rule. This he cannot do: Braun’s conviction has never been
reversed on appeal, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a federal court’s
3

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Quite the opposite: Braun’s conviction has been upheld
repeatedly.
To be sure, Braun vigorously maintains his innocence. See ECF No. 9. This is not
enough. Until that claim of innocence is vindicated by a favorable termination of his
conviction, Heck bars Braun from asserting his Section 1983 claims. Because Braun’s
complaint “lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact” and “fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted,” the Court adopts the R&R’s recommendation to dismiss Braun’s
complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Schafer v. Moore, 46
F.3d 43, 45 (8th Cir. 1995) (explaining that dismissal of Heck-barred claim should be
without prejudice so plaintiff can refile if he satisfies Heck’s favorable-termination
requirement).

And because the Court dismisses Braun’s complaint, Braun’s IFP

Application (ECF No. 3) and Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 5) are denied
as moot.
ORDER
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings in the above-captioned matter, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) is ADOPTED IN FULL.
2. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
3. The IFP Application (ECF No. 3) and the Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF
No. 5) are DENIED AS MOOT.

4

4. The institution having custody of Braun is directed to collect and remit monthly
payments to the Court in the manner set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) until the
$350.00 filing fee is paid in full. Braun is obligated to pay, and the institution having
custody of him is obligated to forward, 20 percent of the preceding month’s income
credited to Braun’s institutional account each time the amount in the account
exceeds $10.00.
5. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to send notice of Braun’s payment obligations to
the institution where Braun is incarcerated.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: November 25, 2024

s/Laura M. Provinzino
Laura M. Provinzino
United States District Judge

5