Rued v. Judge Hatcher

Background

Joseph Daryll Rued and W.O.R., a minor child, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a legal procedure that can provide federal relief from unlawful custody. Rued sought to overturn a Minnesota state-court award of sole custody over W.O.R. The respondents were Judge Hatcher, Referee Stebbins, Judge Worke, Judge Schmidt, Judge Klaphake, Judge Hudson, Judge McKeig, Judge Bond, and Judge Larson.

This was one of four orders issued at the same time concerning the same underlying facts. The court stated that Rued had characterized the state custody proceedings as a form of confinement and had identified the judges and referees as people holding him in custody.

Analysis

The court explained that a basic requirement for federal habeas relief is that the petitioner be “in custody.” It concluded that the state custody proceedings were not confinement and that the named judges and referees were not wardens holding Rued in custody. Because the custody requirement was not met, the court did not grant the requested habeas relief.

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended denying the petition. The court overruled the petitioners’ objection and adopted that recommendation.

Disposition

Judge John R. Tunheim ordered that:

- The objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was overruled. - The report and recommendation was adopted. - The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied. - The motion for recusal was denied as moot.

The court also stated that the magistrate judge had recommended placing Rued on the District of Minnesota’s restricted filers list, but the court said it would take that step in a different related case.