Hughes v. Stenseth
- Douglas Micko
- 0:24-cv-03713
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Hughes v. Stenseth, Judge Micko recommended rejecting Hughes’s second habeas petition because he lacked required appeals-court authorization.
The recommendation affects Robert Michael Hughes’s second federal challenge to his state convictions and the continuation of this case in the District of Minnesota. It recommends dismissal for lack of jurisdiction rather than a decision on the underlying conviction claims.
What happened
Robert Michael Hughes challenged his state convictions for the murders of his wife. He had previously sought habeas relief, and that earlier petition was denied as too late. He filed this second petition nearly fourteen years later.
The report says federal law required Hughes to obtain permission from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals before filing another petition. Because he had not obtained that permission, the court lacked authority to consider the petition.
Judge Douglas L. Micko recommended that the petition be denied without prejudice, the case be dismissed, and no certificate of appealability be issued. The report also explains that it was a recommendation, not a final order, and that objections could be filed within 14 days after service.
The detailed version
- Hughes v. Stenseth · No. 0:24-cv-03713
- Douglas L. Micko
- Oct. 9, 2024
Background
Robert Michael Hughes challenged state-court convictions for first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder arising from the 2005 shooting death of his wife. The opinion states that Hughes previously sought federal habeas relief from his convictions and sentence in an earlier related proceeding. That petition was denied as untimely. Nearly fourteen years later, Hughes filed this petition again.
Legal issue
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), a person in custody under a state-court judgment who files a second or successive habeas petition must first ask the appropriate federal court of appeals for authorization to have the district court consider the petition. The report states that Hughes had not obtained authorization from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Recommendation and reasoning
Because Hughes lacked the required authorization, the report concludes that the District of Minnesota lacked jurisdiction—that is, legal authority—to consider his successive petition. The report therefore recommends denying the petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and dismissing the action. “Without prejudice” means the recommendation does not state that the petition is permanently barred on the merits; the report does not decide whether Hughes’s underlying conviction claims are valid.
The report also recommends that no certificate of appealability be issued because the jurisdictional basis for dismissal was not fairly debatable.
Procedural status
The document is a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, not a final order or judgment of the District Court. It states that Hughes could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the report, and that the report was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.