Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stegemann v. Rensselaer County Sheriff's Office

United States District Court, N.D. New York

March 3, 2017

JOSHUA G. STEGEMANN, Plaintiff,
v.
RENSSELAER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al.,

          DECISION & ORDER

          THOMAS J. McAVOY, Senior United States District Judge

         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 plaintiff'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 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 for 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 (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 future 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 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.