Haddeland v. State of Minnesota
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-01246
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Haddeland v. State of Minnesota, Judge Tostrud dismissed the action for failure to prosecute, denied the Section 2254 petition, and denied the fee application as moot.
Patrick Alan Haddeland’s action was dismissed for failure to prosecute, his Section 2254 petition was denied, his fee application was denied as moot, and no certificate of appealability would issue.
What happened
Haddeland v. State of Minnesota concerns Patrick Alan Haddeland’s filing titled “Writ of Habeas Corpus,” which the court treated as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on May 19, 2025.
No party objected to the recommendation. The district court reviewed it for clear error, found none, and accepted it. The court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute, denied Haddeland’s Section 2254 petition, denied his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot, and stated that no certificate of appealability would issue.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud entered the order on June 20, 2025. The opinion does not explain the underlying claims or why the action was not prosecuted.
The detailed version
- Haddeland v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:25-cv-01246
- Eric Tostrud
- June 20, 2025
Background
Patrick Alan Haddeland filed a document titled “Writ of Habeas Corpus.” The court treated that filing as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on May 19, 2025.
Review of the Recommendation
No party objected to the Report and Recommendation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court therefore reviewed it for clear error. The court found no clear error and accepted the recommendation.
Rulings
The court ordered that:
- The Report and Recommendation was accepted. - The action was dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. - Haddeland’s filing, treated as a Section 2254 petition, was denied. - Haddeland’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied as moot. - No certificate of appealability would issue.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud directed that judgment be entered. The opinion does not discuss the substance of Haddeland’s underlying petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.