Hughes v. Stenseth

Background

Robert Michael Hughes filed an amended petition seeking habeas relief from a conviction. The opinion states that Hughes had previously sought habeas relief from the same conviction in a prior related proceeding, which was dismissed with prejudice as untimely. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), a person seeking to file a second or successive habeas petition must first obtain authorization from the appropriate federal court of appeals.

Hughes had not sought or received that authorization before filing the amended petition. United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Hughes did not object to the recommendation, and the district court adopted it.

Rulings on Hughes’s Motions

The court granted in part and denied in part Hughes’s motion for free copies of documents. It directed the Clerk of Court to provide Hughes, without cost, one copy each of the initial petition, the amended petition, and the docket sheet. It also directed the Clerk to return the original exhibits Hughes had submitted with his petition. The court denied the motion in all other respects.

Hughes asked the court to reopen his earlier habeas proceeding, consolidate it with this case, and treat the current case as a continuation of the earlier proceeding. The court treated that request as a motion for relief from the earlier judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court held that, because it lacked jurisdiction over the unauthorized successive habeas petition, it could not consider or grant that motion. The court also stated that Hughes had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for Rule 60(b)(6) relief, including an adequate explanation for waiting more than fourteen years after the earlier dismissal.

Hughes alternatively asked the court to stay this case while he sought authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The court denied that request because authorization was required before he filed the successive petition, not afterward. The court also noted that Hughes had previously sought and been denied authorization.

Hughes separately asked the court to order the Minnesota Department of Corrections to provide greater law-library access, in-person legal consultation with another inmate, and free photocopies, paper, envelopes, and stamps. The court denied the motion in its entirety. It found that Hughes had not identified specific denied resources that hindered a nonfrivolous and potentially meritorious legal claim, and it stated that inmates do not have a constitutional right to assist other inmates with legal filings. The court also declined to second-guess the prison policies concerning the requested supplies because Hughes had not shown that those policies were unlawful or unjustified.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation, granted in part and denied in part the motion for copies, denied the motion to accept the current petition as a continuation of the previous habeas proceeding, and denied the motion for law-library access. It dismissed the matter without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and ordered that no certificate of appealability be issued.