Abdulkarim Mohamed Dahir v. Lori Swanson, Former Minnesota Attorney General, in individual capacity

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 19-3176
___________________________
Abdulkarim Mohamed Dahir
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Lori Swanson, Former Minnesota Attorney General, in individual capacity; Adam
Kujawa, Former Minnesota Assistant Attorney General, in individual capacity and
official capacity; Scott Haldeman, Former Minnesota Assistant Attorney General,
in individual capacity and official capacity; Kirsi Poupore, Managing Attorney,
Minnesota Attorney General, in individual capacity and official capacity; Adam
Kohnstamm, Minnesota Assistant Attorney General; Christopher J. Florey, Former
Minnesota Assistant Attorney General; Alexandria Kieley (Mountain), Former
Investigator with Minnesota Attorney General; Keith M. Ellison, Minnesota
Attorney General in official capacity
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: June 3, 2020
Filed: June 8, 2020
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM.
Abdulkarim Mohamed Dahir appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in which he alleged he was improperly included as a
defendant in the criminal case against his business. Having jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
After de novo review, this court concludes that the district court properly
dismissed the complaint as Dahir failed to state any claim upon which relief may be
granted. See Montin v. Moore, 846 F.3d 289, 292 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of
review); Spirtas Co. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 715 F.3d 667, 670 (8th Cir. 2013) (this court
may affirm on any basis supported by record). The criminal complaints plainly show
that Dahir was not charged with any offense, was not a party to the criminal case, and
was not convicted of any crime. The Minnesota appellate court had already
determined that Dahir was not a party to the criminal proceeding such that he was
precluded from litigating that issue in this action. See State v. Twin Cities Care
Servs., No. A17-2070, 2018 WL 3614156, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. July 30, 2018);
State v. Lemmer, 736 N.W.2d 650, 659 (Minn. 2007) (collateral estoppel precludes
issue where it was identical to one resolved in prior adjudication, there was a final
decision on merits, estopped party was a party or in privity with party, and had full
and fair opportunity to be heard).
This court finds that neither the district court nor the magistrate plainly erred
by failing to recuse themselves sua sponte based on unfounded assertions of
favoritism, purported animus, adverse rulings, or speculative and conclusory
allegations of potential conflicts of interest. See Fletcher v. Conoco Pipe Line Co.,
1The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota, partially adopting the report and recommendation of the
Honorable Steven E. Rau, late a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of
Minnesota.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

323 F.3d 661, 663 (8th Cir. 2003) (reviewing recusal claims first raised on appeal for
plain error); United States v. Rubashkin, 655 F.3d 849, 858 (8th Cir. 2011) (appellant
who did not move for recusal during trial essentially argued that court erred by not
recusing sua sponte; this court has never found plain error in failure to recuse sua
sponte); United States v. Oaks, 606 F.3d 530, 537 (8th Cir. 2010) (judge is presumed
impartial; party seeking disqualification bears substantial burden of proof).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --