Guevara v. Tostrud et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Peter Michael Guevara,
Plaintiff,
v.
Eric C. Tostrud, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 26-cv-1273 (KMM/SGE)
ORDER
Plaintiff Peter Michael Guevara brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that his constitutional rights were violated during a recent prosecution resulting
in his conviction on charges of receipt and possession of child pornography. (Dkt. 1.); see
United States v. Guevara, No. 21-cr-241 (ECT/DTS) (D. Minn.). He sued the district
judge and magistrate judge assigned to his criminal case, the prosecutor, his defense
counsel, and many others, for allegedly preventing him from fully presenting his defense.
Because Mr. Guevara is a prisoner, United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins
reviewed his complaint prior to service under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and issued a Report
and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice
because Mr. Geuvara’s claims are barred by the doctrine set out in Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). (Dkt. 4.)
On March 31, 2026, Mr. Guevara filed objections to the R&R, a motion for leave
to file a first amended complaint, and a proposed first amended complaint. (Objections,
Dkt. 10; Mot. to Amend, Dkt. 8; First Am. Compl., Dkt. 12.) In his objections to the
CASE 0:26-cv-01273-KMM-SGE Doc. 13 Filed 04/28/26 Page 1 of 3

2
R&R, Mr. Guevara argues that the Judge Elkins misapplied Heck. (Dkt. 10.) And in his
motion to amend, he asserts that he seeks to narrow his claims to address the concerns
raised in the R&R and address only “independent constitutional violations.” (Dkt. 8 at 1.)
Because Mr. Guevara objected to the R&R, the Court has reviewed the matter de
novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Based on that review, the Court finds no error in the
R&R’s analysis and agrees with the conclusion that Mr. Guevara’s claims are barred by
Heck because the essence of those claims, if proven true, would plainly call into doubt
the validity of his conviction. Therefore, the Court adopts the R&R. Moreover, the Court
denies Mr. Guevara’s request for leave to file an amended complaint. The proposed
amendment (Dkt. 12) does not change the essence of Mr. Guevara’s claims—that the
defendants conspired to interfere with his ability to present a complete defense in his
criminal case. Thus, granting leave to amend would be futile. See Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d
842, 850 (8th Cir. 2010) (explaining that denying leave to amend for futility means that
the court finds a proposed amendment fails to state a cause of action).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 4) is ACCEPTED.
2. This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b).
3. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 8) is
DENIED.
5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Update Official Mailing Address and Direct Service to
Alternate Address for All Matters Before this Court (Dkt. 7) is DENIED as moot.
CASE 0:26-cv-01273-KMM-SGE Doc. 13 Filed 04/28/26 Page 2 of 3

3
6. Plaintiff is directed to pay the unpaid balance ($350.00) of the statutory filing fee
for this action in the manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), and the Clerk
of Court is directed to provide notice of this requirement to the authorities at the
institution where Plaintiff is confined.
Date: April 28, 2026 s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01273-KMM-SGE Doc. 13 Filed 04/28/26 Page 3 of 3