Bewaji v. Falgreen
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:25-cv-04342
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Bewaji v. Falgreen, Judge Blackwell denied Olabamidele Olumide Bewaji's petition challenging his state conviction because he never raised his claims in state court first.
State prisoners who wish to challenge their convictions in federal court must first exhaust all available state court remedies — meaning they must raise each claim in state court before a federal court will consider it. This case illustrates that a federal habeas petition will be denied if the petitioner concedes they skipped that step, regardless of the underlying merits of their claim.
What happened
In Bewaji v. Falgreen (Civ. No. 25-4342), Olabamidele Olumide Bewaji filed a federal petition seeking release from custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal law allowing state prisoners to challenge their convictions in federal court. He argued that a victim impact statement made by respondent Jed Falgreen during his underlying state criminal case was prejudicial and should have been excluded. A U.S. Magistrate Judge reviewed the petition and recommended dismissing it because Bewaji had never brought this claim — understood as a due process violation — before any state court.
Bewaji objected to that recommendation, but rather than addressing the Magistrate Judge's specific reasoning about failure to exhaust state remedies, he repeated his original arguments, tried to add new factual allegations, and raised a brand-new privacy claim. The district court found that adding new allegations through an objection is procedurally improper, and that none of Bewaji's objections actually challenged the exhaustion analysis. Because no specific objections to that analysis were raised, the court reviewed the Magistrate Judge's report only for clear error — an obvious mistake in applying the law or interpreting the facts.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell found no clear error, noting that federal law requires a petitioner to exhaust available state remedies before seeking federal relief, and that Bewaji himself had conceded he never raised his due process claim in state court. Judge Blackwell overruled Bewaji's objections, accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in full, and denied the petition. The court also declined to issue a Certificate of Appealability, which is a document required before a prisoner can appeal this type of ruling to a higher court.
The detailed version
- Bewaji v. Falgreen · No. 0:25-cv-04342
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Mar. 18, 2026
Background
Petitioner Olabamidele Olumide Bewaji, proceeding without a lawyer (pro se), filed an Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on January 7, 2026. A § 2254 petition is a federal mechanism by which a state prisoner challenges the constitutionality of their conviction or confinement. Bewaji's sole claim was that a victim impact statement made by Respondent Jed Falgreen during the underlying state criminal proceeding was prejudicial and should have been excluded.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on January 21, 2026, recommending dismissal of the Amended Petition. The R&R's basis was failure to exhaust state remedies — a threshold requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) that a petitioner must pursue and exhaust all available state court avenues before seeking federal habeas relief. The Magistrate Judge construed Bewaji's claim as a due process claim and found it had not been presented to any state court.
Petitioner's Objections
Bewaji filed objections to the R&R on February 6, 2026. Rather than specifically challenging the exhaustion analysis, he repeated the arguments already presented to the Magistrate Judge, attempted to introduce new factual allegations related to his due process claim, and raised a new constitutional claim based on privacy rights. The district court noted that using an objection to an R&R as a vehicle to add new factual allegations is procedurally improper under district precedent.
Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(3), objected-to portions of an R&R are reviewed de novo (fresh, independent review), while portions not specifically objected to are reviewed only for clear error — an obvious mistake in applying the law or interpreting the facts. Because Bewaji's objections did not specifically address the exhaustion analysis, the court applied the more deferential clear error standard to that portion of the R&R. The court noted, however, that because Bewaji is pro se, his objections were entitled to liberal (generous) construction under Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Court's Analysis and Ruling
Judge Blackwell found no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis. The legal requirement is explicit: 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) mandates exhaustion of available state remedies before federal habeas relief is available. Critically, Bewaji himself conceded in his petition that he had not raised his due process claim in state court. The new allegations and new privacy claim raised in the objection did not cure or address the exhaustion deficiency. Accordingly, the court overruled Bewaji's objections, accepted the R&R in its entirety, and denied the Amended Petition.
The court also denied Bewaji's two Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (requests to waive filing fees based on financial hardship) as moot, given the denial of the petition. Additionally, no Certificate of Appealability was issued. A Certificate of Appealability is required before a § 2254 petitioner may appeal a denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals; without it, an appeal cannot proceed unless separately authorized.
Disposition
- Petitioner's objections to the R&R: OVERRULED - Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation: ACCEPTED - Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 8): DENIED - Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. Nos. 3, 10): DENIED as moot - Certificate of Appealability: NOT ISSUED
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.