Allen v. Minnesota, State of
- John Tunheim
- 0:24-cv-03213
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Allen v. Minnesota, Judge Wright recommended denying habeas relief and dismissing without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because Allen was not in custody.
Paris Da’Jon Allen’s federal habeas petition was affected. The recommendation would deny the petition, dismiss the matter without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, deny his evidentiary-hearing motion, and prevent issuance of a certificate of appealability.
What happened
In Allen v. Minnesota, Paris Da’Jon Allen challenged his 2002 Minnesota conviction and 36-month prison sentence through a federal habeas petition. He argued that ongoing predatory-offender registration and a possible no-contact condition kept him in custody.
The court concluded that Allen’s imprisonment and any conditional release had ended long ago. It also concluded that registration requirements and a no-contact order do not create the required custodial relationship for federal habeas jurisdiction.
Judge Wright recommended denying the petition, dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, denying Allen’s evidentiary-hearing motion, and issuing no certificate of appealability. The document is a recommendation, not a final district-court order.
The detailed version
- Allen v. Minnesota, State of · No. 0:24-cv-03213
- John Tunheim
- Sept. 13, 2024
Background
Paris Da’Jon Allen pleaded guilty in Minnesota state court in 2002 to third-degree criminal sexual conduct and received a 36-month prison sentence. He later filed a federal petition seeking habeas relief from the conviction and sentence.
The petition was reviewed under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court explained that federal habeas relief is available only when the petitioner is “in custody” because of the challenged conviction. Custody can include parole or supervised release, but the court stated that the increased punishment a person might face for a later conviction is not custody.
Court’s Analysis
Allen’s 36-month prison term had expired, and any conditional release had also ended. The court therefore found that the usual signs of custody were absent.
Allen identified two continuing consequences of the conviction. First, he was required to register as a predatory offender. The court noted that the Eighth Circuit had not directly decided whether post-conviction registration satisfies the custody requirement, but it stated that other courts, including courts in the District of Minnesota, had concluded that registration does not create the required custodial relationship.
Second, Allen alleged that the sentencing court had imposed conditions including no contact with the victim. The court stated that it was not clear whether such a condition remained in effect. Even if it did, the court concluded that a no-contact order does not impose the kind of severe and immediate restraint that qualifies as custody for habeas purposes.
Because Allen was not in custody, the court treated the defect as jurisdictional, meaning the court lacked authority to consider the petition further. The court mentioned that the petition likely also faced other problems, including the one-year limitations period for many state-prisoner habeas petitions, but it did not reach those issues.
Recommended Disposition
The Report and Recommendation recommends that Allen’s habeas petition be denied and that the matter be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. It also recommends that Allen’s motion for an evidentiary hearing be denied and that no certificate of appealability issue.
The document states that it is not a final order or judgment and is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. It says the parties may file written objections within the period stated in the applicable local rule.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.