Stegemann v. Rensselaer County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 23

DECISION AND ORDER: The Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Hummel's October 3, 2016 Report-Recommendation and Order, Dkt. No. #19 , in part, finding that all claims except the claims brought under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments seeking monetary recovery for the indiscriminate destruction of property are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in the event Plaintiff can overcome the "favorable termination" rule established by Heck. The matter is recommitted to Magistrate Judge Hummel to make recommendations whether Plaintiff has pleaded legally viable claims under the Fourth and/or Fifth Amendments for monetary recovery for property destruction, and if, so whether the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. The Plaintiff's #12 Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Service of Summons is denied with leave to renew following resolution of whether legally viable claims remain pending in this Court. Lastly, the Plaintiff's #14 letter motion seeking a status report of the motion at docket entry #12 is denied as moot. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on March 3, 2017. {Copy of this Order served via regular mail on the pro se plaintiff at F.C.I. Berlin, Inmate Mail/Parcels, P.O. Box 9000, Berlin, NH 03570}.(rep)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
JOSHUA G. STEGEMANN,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 1:15-CV-21
(TJM/CFH)

RENSSELAER COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, et al.,
________________________________________
THOMAS J. McAVOY,
Senior United States District Judge

DECISION & ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
This pro se action was referred to the Hon. Christian F. Hummel, United States

Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Rule 72.3(c) .
In his October 3, 2016 Report-Recommendation and Order, Dkt. No. 19, Magistrate
Judge Hummel recommends that Stegemann’s complaint be dismissed as barred by Heck
v. Humphrey, 513 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), and that plaintif f’s letter motion requesting
appointment of counsel and service of summonses, Dkt. No. 12, be denied as moot.
Plaintiff filed objections to the recommendations. Dkt. No. 20.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
When objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are lodged, the

district court makes a “de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified

1

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); see also United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997) (The
Court must make a de novo determination to the extent that a party makes specific
objections to a magistrate’s findings.). After reviewing the report and recommendation, the
Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit
the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
III.

BACKGROUND
On January 8, 2015, Stegemann, acting pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking

money damages pursuant to (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”) and Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) for violations of his
rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as a result of the unlawful
search and seizure of his person and property, and interception of his electronic
communications, (2) 18 U.S.C. § 2520 and 18 U.S.C. § 2701 f or intercepting and accessing
his electronic communications, (3) § 1983 for violation of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth,
and Fourteenth Amendments for the arbitrary destruction of his property, and (4) various
New York and Massachusetts constitutional and statutory provisions for the unlawful search
and seizure of his person and property, and for the interception of his electronic
communications. Stegemann initiated this action while his underlying criminal case was
ongoing.
On February 3, 2015, Magistrate Judge Hummel recommended (1) dismissal without
prejudice of Stegemann’s Bivens and § 1983 claims under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477

2

(1994), (2) dismissal of Stegemann’s Fourteenth Amendment destruction of property claims
under Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984), and (3) dismissal of Stegemann’s state law
claims for lack of diversity jurisdiction. On February 19, 2015, the Court accepted
Magistrate Judge Hummel’s recommendations and dismissed the action, erroneously
stating that all claims were dismissed with prejudice. Stegemann appealed to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The Second Circuit found that the Court improperly dismissed Stegemann’s Bivens
and § 1983 claims under Heck because in February 2015, Stegemann’s criminal trial was
still ongoing. See May 3, 2016 Mandate, Dkt. No. 13, p. 5 (“Heck bars a § 1983 claim based
on an extant conviction, but it has no application to an anticipated f uture conviction.”). The
Second Circuit further found that although Stegemann had been found guilty of all counts of
the indictment in the underlying criminal case at the time it considered the appeal, 1 a
judgment of conviction had not yet been entered thereby preventing the application of Heck
at that time. Id. p. 8 (“Until sentencing occurs and a final judgment of conviction is entered, it
remains possible that the verdict will not ripen into a judgment of conviction.”). Thus, the
Second Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the matter to determine the application
of Heck.
The Second Circuit also addressed Stegemann’s destruction of property claims,
finding that the Court “properly dismissed Stegemann’s Fourteenth Amendment destruction
of property claims under Hudson, 468 U.S. 517,” but “failed to consider Stegemann’s
destruction of property claims made under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.” May 3, 2016

1
On August 5, 2015, a jury returned a verdict finding Stegemann guilty of all counts of the Indictment
in the underlying criminal case.

3

Mandate, p. 9. The Second Circuit held that the Court “should have considered and
explained whether Stegemann’s complaint states a claim under the Fourth and Fifth
Amendments, rather than simply dismissing all of his destruction of property claims for
jurisdictional reasons under Hudson, which applies only in the Fourteenth Amendment
context.” Id. p. 10. Thus, the Second Circuit remanded “Stegemann’s destruction of
property claims for consideration of whether he has stated a claim under the Fourth and
Fifth Amendments.” Id.
The Second Circuit also instructed that, on remand, “the District Court should
consider whether it has supplemental jurisdiction over Stegemann’s state law claims under
28 U.S.C. §1367.” Id.
On remand, the matter was again referred to Magistrate Judge Hummel for a report
and recommendation and, as indicated above, Magistrate Judge Hummel recommended
that the complaint be dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 513 U.S. 477, 486-87
(1994), and that plaintiff’s letter motion requesting appointment of counsel and service of
summonses, Dkt. No. 12, be denied as moot. Dkt. No. 19.
In his objections, Plaintiff argues that his claims seeking monetary damages for the
“excessively forceful execution” of the search warrant, the indiscriminate destruction of his
property, and the improper interception and access to his electronics communications are
not barred by Heck. Dkt. No. 20.
IV.

DISCUSSION
As indicated by Magistrate Judge Hummel in his February 3, 2015 Report-

Recommendation and Order, “pursuing . . . claims regarding unlawful interception and

4

access to electronic data or conversations would necessarily imply the invalidity of the
search warrant [that was] the cornerstone of [Stegmann’s] Indictment and prosecution.” Id.
p. 8. Because Stegmann has not demonstrated or argued that his conviction 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, the Heck rule bars Stegmann from recovering damages for the
law enforcement officers’ actions of intercepting and accessing his electronics
communications. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. Thus, Stegmann’s objection in this regard
is overruled.
Based on the allegations in the Complaint that law enforcement officers
unnecessarily destroyed Plaintiff’s property (including tearing down interior walls and
ceilings) while executing the search warrant of Stegmann’s residence, the Court treats
Stegmann’s “excessively forceful execution” of the search warrant claim to be the same as
his claim alleging the indiscriminate destruction of his property. Because monetary recovery
for the indiscriminate destruction of his property would not necessarily imply the invalidity of
his conviction, see id., at 487 n.7 (explaining that “a suit for damages attributable to an
allegedly unreasonable search may lie even if the challenged search produced evidence
that was introduced in a . . . criminal trial resulting in the . . . conviction [because] . . . a §
1983 action, even if successful, would not necessarily imply that the . . . conviction was
unlawful.”); see also United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65, 71 (1998)(“Excessive or
unnecessary destruction of property in the course of a search may violate the Fourth
Amendment, even though the entry itself is lawful and the fruits of the search are not

5

subject to suppression.”), Stegmann’s claims for property damages under the Fourth and
Fifth Amendments appear not to be bared by Heck. Thus, Stegmann’s objection in this
regard is sustained. Because Magistrate Judge Hummel did not address whether
Stegmann has presented legally viable property destruction claims under the Fourth or Fifth
Amendments, the matter is recommitted to Magistrate Judge Hummel for further
recommendation on this issue.
V.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge

Hummel’s October 3, 2016 Report-Recommendation and Order, Dkt. No. 19, in part, finding
that all claims except the claims brought under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments seeking
monetary recovery for the indiscriminate destruction of property are barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in the event
Plaintiff can overcome the “favorable termination” rule established by Heck. The matter is
recommitted to Magistrate Judge Hummel to make recommendations whether Plaintiff has
pleaded legally viable claims under the Fourth and/or Fifth Amendments for monetary
recovery for property destruction, and if, so whether the Court should exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel and service of summonses [Dkt. No. 12]
is denied with leave to renew following resolution of whether legally viable claims remain
pending in this Court.
Plaintiff’s letter-motion seeking a status report of this Dkt. No. 12 motion, [Dkt. # 14]
is denied as moot.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:March 3, 2017

7