Doranti v. Sims et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
SARPRIO DORANTI,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEREMIAH 	SIMS, 	BART 	HOLLAREN,
JAIME LAGRAVES, and JEFF PALMER,
in 	their 	own 	individual 	and 	official
capacities,
Defendants.
Case No. 25‐CV‐4356 (NEB/DTS)
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff 	Sarprio 	Doranti 	contends 	that 	Minnesota 	Sex 	Offender 	Program
(“MSOP”) officials violated his constitutional rights by fabricating behavioral expectation
reports, leading to the revocation of his conditional release and his current state‐court
incarceration. He brings claims under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985(3). United States
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended dismissal; Doranti objected. (ECF No.
10 (“R&R”); ECF No. 11.) After a de novo review, the Court agrees that Doranti’s claims
are barred by the Heck doctrine, so the Court overrules the objection and dismisses
Doranti’s claims.
BACKGROUND
Sarprio Doranti is an MSOP client but is currently incarcerated in a Minnesota
prison. (ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”)); In re Holly, No. 27‐P8‐91‐034383 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Apr. 17,
CASE 0:25-cv-04356-NEB-DTS Doc. 14 Filed 04/20/26 Page 1 of 5

2
1992); In re Holly, No. C9‐94‐492, 1994 WL 396314, at *1 (Minn. App. 1994) (affirming trial
court’s civil commitment of Elliot B. Holly, now known as Sarprio Doranti). On October
16, 2023, Doranti pled guilty to fourth‐degree assault under Minnesota law and was
sentenced to twenty months’ imprisonment, followed by five years of conditional release.
State v. Doranti, No. 09‐CR‐22‐2192, Dkt. 46 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Oct. 16, 2023). But his
conditional release has been revoked, hence his current imprisonment.
Doranti sued Defendants 1 , asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and
1985(3). Doranti contends that while civilly committed through MSOP, Defendants
conspired 	to 	fabricate 	behavioral 	expectations 	reports—without 	notice, 	witness
testimony, or corroborating evidence—to secure his return to prison. (Compl. ¶¶ 16–80)
He claims Defendants’ actions were racially motivated, violated his rights to equal
protection and due process, and resulted in his unlawful confinement. (Id.) Doranti seeks
various forms of relief, including release from all confinement and compensatory
damages. (Id. at 47–49. 2 )
Magistrate Judge Schultz previously warned Doranti about potential legal and
factual deficiencies in his complaint and permitted him to amend it within twenty‐one
1 The Defendants are Jeremiah Sims (“hearing officer”), Bart Hollaren (“Agent, Hennepin
County”), Jaime LaGraves (“MSOP Clinical Supervisor”), and Jeff Palmer (“[I]nvestigator
for MSOP”). (Compl. ¶¶ 9–12.)
2 All page citations to the record reference ECF pagination.
CASE 0:25-cv-04356-NEB-DTS Doc. 14 Filed 04/20/26 Page 2 of 5

3
days. (ECF No. 5 at 2–4.) No amended complaint followed,3 and once the deadline passed,
Judge Schultz issued an R&R recommending dismissal for failure to state a plausible
claim. (R&R.)
ANALYSIS
Because Doranti objected, the Court reviews the R&R de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(b)(3). And because Doranti is a prisoner, he is subject to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, under which the Court must dismiss a complaint if it contains claims that are
frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b).
Judge Schultz concluded that Doranti’s claims should be dismissed because they
are barred by the Heck doctrine. (R&R at 5–6.) Under Heck, if a plaintiff who has been
convicted of a crime brings a Section 1983 claim, and a ruling in the plaintiffʹs favor would
call into question the validity of the conviction or sentence, courts must dismiss the claim
unless the conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called
into question by a federal courtʹs issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994); Thomas v. Eschen, 928 F.3d 709, 711–13 (8th Cir. 2019) (applying
Heck). Courts have extended Heck to claims under Section 1985. E.g., Coello v. DiLeo, 43
F.4th 346, 355 (3d Cir. 2022); Roberts v. City of Fairbanks, 947 F.3d 1191, 1198 n.8 (9th Cir.
3 In his objection to the R&R, Doranti asserts that he requested the return of his complaint
to amend it but never received it. (ECF No. 11 ¶ 2.)
CASE 0:25-cv-04356-NEB-DTS Doc. 14 Filed 04/20/26 Page 3 of 5

4
2020); Arrington v. St., No. 22‐CV‐2362 (MJD/JFD), 2022 WL 18356337, at *2 (D. Minn. Oct.
25, 2022), report & recommendation adopted, No. 22‐CV‐2362 (MJD/JFD), 2023 WL 204078
(D. Minn. Jan. 17, 2023), affʹd, No. 23‐1426, 2023 WL 4247219 (8th Cir. Mar. 24, 2023).
In his objection to the R&R, Doranti does not provide any factual or legal basis to
dispute the application of the Heck doctrine. (ECF Nos. 11–12.) His objection does not
address the underlying basis for the R&R; it instead continues to challenge the validity of
the underlying conditional‐release proceedings.
Since Doranti’s claims attack his revocation and current imprisonment, Doranti
cannot prevail without the Court questioning the validity of the state proceedings that
led to his current confinement. His claims are foreclosed by Heck. 4
CONCLUSION
Based on all the files, records, and proceedings in this case, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Doranti’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) is
OVERRULED;
2. 	The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) is ACCEPTED;
3. 	Doranti’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
4. 	Doranti’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 3, 8) is DENIED
AS MOOT; and
4 Because Doranti’s claims are Heck‐barred, the Court need not reach the merits.
CASE 0:25-cv-04356-NEB-DTS Doc. 14 Filed 04/20/26 Page 4 of 5

5
5. 	Doranti is ORDERED to pay the unpaid balance of this action’s statutory
filing fee ($350.00) in the manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), and
the Clerk of Court is ORDERED to provide notice of this requirement to the
authorities at the institution where Doranti is confined.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: April 20, 2026 	BY THE COURT:
s/Nancy E. Brasel
Nancy E. Brasel
United States District Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-04356-NEB-DTS Doc. 14 Filed 04/20/26 Page 5 of 5