Bewaji v. Falgreen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
OLABAMIDELE OLUMIDE BEWAJI,
Plaintiff,
v.
JED FALGREEN,
Defendant.
Case No. 26-CV-0088 (ECT/JFD)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Olabamidele Olumide Bewaji’s “Petition
to Sue,” which the Court construes, for present purposes, as a civil-action complaint. (Dkt.
No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court recommends dismissing this action.
Bewaji is a Minnesota state prisoner who was sentenced in two actions in June 2023.
(See, e.g., Docket; Order and Warrant of Commitment, State v. Bewaji, No. 07-CR-21-0738
(Minn. Dist. Ct. June 20, 2023); Order and Warrant of Commitment, State v. Bewaji,
No. 07-CR-21-0800 	(Minn. 	Dist. 	Ct. 	June 	20, 	2023)).1 The 	Complaint 	names 	one
defendant, 	Jed 	Falgreen. 	Bewaji 	alleges 	that 	Falgreen 	made 	false 	and 	defamatory
statements during Bewaji’s sentencing proceeding on June 20, 2023, and that those
1 Some materials from Bewaji’s state prosecutions cited in this Order do not appear in this
federal action’s docket. But a district court may take judicial notice of public state-court
records. See, e.g., Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 760 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing
United States v. Eagleboy, 200 F.3d 1137, 1140 (8th Cir. 1999)); Dahir v. Bolin, No. 24-
CV-1304 (ECT/ECW), 2025 WL 3027462, at *1 n.1 (D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2025) (citing
cases), R. & R. adopted, 2025 WL 3023516 (D. Minn. Oct. 29, 2025).
CASE 0:26-cv-00088-ECT-JFD Doc. 3 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 5

2
statements damaged his reputation. (See Compl. 1.2) Specifically, Falgreen, a private
individual related to a victim in Bewaji’s criminal cases, accused Bewaji of an earlier
instance of misconduct and stated that “evil runs in [him].” (Id.) Bewaji seeks $10 million
in damages for defamation. (See id. at 5.) He also suggests that Falgreen’s statements
influenced the state trial judge’s sentencing decision. (See id. at 2.)
In addition to his defamation claim, Bewaji’s filing challenges the legitimacy of his
state criminal convictions and sentences. (See id. at 2–4.) He generally asserts that the
prosecutor engaged in misconduct (violating his rights under the U.S. and Minnesota
Constitutions) and that his resulting convictions and sentences are unlawful. (See id.) As
relief, Bewaji asks this Court to “reverse” his convictions, order his immediate release from
imprisonment, and vacate the lifetime-conditional-release portion of his sentences. (See id.
at 4.) In short, Bewaji is using this civil action to contest both a private party’s statements
and the outcomes of state criminal proceedings.
As of this Report and Recommendation’s Date, Bewaji has not paid this action’s
filing fee or submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this case.
Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), a district court “shall review . . . a complaint in
a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity”; in that review, the court should “identify cognizable
2 Bewaji dates these statements to June 23, 2023, but the transcript indicates that Falgreen
made them on June 20, 2023. (See Tr. of Proceedings 11–17, State v. Bewaji, Nos. 07-CR-
21-0738 and 07-CR-21-0800 (Minn. Dist. Ct. June 20, 2023) (Index No. 127).) The
difference in dates makes no difference to the Court’s analysis.
CASE 0:26-cv-00088-ECT-JFD Doc. 3 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 5

3
claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint . . . is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or . . . seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.”3 The Court concludes
that although Falgreen is the only named defendant, at least part of the relief sought—the
reversal of Bewaji’s convictions and sentence—can only be obtained from governmental
entities. Screening of the Complaint under § 1915A(a) is thus appropriate.
Whatever federal-law claims arise in this case arise from Bewaji’s challenge to his
convictions and sentence. But this challenge fails for multiple reasons. Most importantly,
to the extent Bewaji seeks release from custody or overturning of his conviction, a civil-
rights lawsuit is not an available vehicle. The proper (and exclusive) federal remedy for a
state prisoner challenging the fact or duration of his imprisonment is a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.4 See, e.g., Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
500 (1973) (“[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical
imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate
release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of
habeas corpus.”); see also, e.g., Adams v. Agniel, 405 F.3d 643, 644 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing
3 Furthermore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), if a court determines that
it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action.
4 The Court takes judicial notice of the pending case Bewaji v. Falgreen, No. 25-CV-4342
(JWB/DTS), which purports to raise habeas-type claims challenging the same convictions
at issue here.
CASE 0:26-cv-00088-ECT-JFD Doc. 3 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Preiser). The Court therefore recommends dismissing the Complaint without prejudice to
the extent it seeks the invalidity of Bewaji’s convictions or his release from confinement.5
What remains is Bewaji’s defamation claim against Falgreen. There is no federal
law against defamation, and it is established that § 1983 (the usual vehicle for civil-rights
claims) does not provide a remedy for defamation alone. See, e.g., Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S.
693, 712 (1976); Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 849 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing Paul-reliant
caselaw). So Bewaji’s defamation claim must proceed, if at all, under Minnesota state law.
But this creates a supplemental-jurisdiction problem. Generally speaking, when a
court dismisses all federal-law claims early in a case, it should decline supplemental
jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims. See, e.g., Wilson v. Miller, 821 F.3d 963,
971 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing Johnson v. City of Shorewood, 360 F.3d 810, 819 (8th Cir.
2004)); Logering v. Morrison Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 23-CV-0177 (JWB/LIB), 2023 WL
3276515, at *7 (D. Minn. May 5, 2023) (quoting Wilson), aff’d, No. 23-2376, 2023 WL
8713781 (8th Cir. Dec. 18, 2023). The result is clear: because no federal-law claims can
proceed, 	the 	Court 	recommends 	dismissing 	without 	prejudice 	Bewaji’s 	state-law
defamation claim.
5 To the extent the Complaint seeks monetary damages based on an allegedly wrongful
conviction or imprisonment, those claims also cannot proceed. Under Heck v. Humphrey,
a civil-rights plaintiff cannot recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction
or imprisonment unless and until the conviction has been overturned or vacated by
appropriate authority. 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994); see also, e.g., Mitchell v. Kirchmeier,
28 F.4th 888, 895 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting and discussing Heck). It is undisputed that
Bewaji’s conviction has not been reversed, expunged, or otherwise set aside. The Court
therefore recommends dismissing without prejudice any damages claims Bewaji asserts
based on his confinement.
CASE 0:26-cv-00088-ECT-JFD Doc. 3 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Under the above recommendations, the Court recommends dismissing this action in
its entirety.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons above, and based on all the files, records, and proceedings in this
case, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE in its entirety under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated: January 12, 2026 	_s/ John F. Docherty________________
JOHN F. DOCHERTY
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written
objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days
after being served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to
those objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. See Local Rule
72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set forth
in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-00088-ECT-JFD Doc. 3 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 5