Thomas v. Clay County Correctional Facility
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:26-cv-01867
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Thomas v. Clay County Correctional Facility, Judge Menendez denied Thomas’s detention-challenge petition without prejudice, adopted the report, denied fee-waiver request as moot, and issued no appealability certificate.
Jerome Anthony Thomas III’s petition was denied without prejudice. Clay County Correctional Facility was the named respondent. Thomas’s application to proceed without paying filing fees was denied as moot, and no certificate of appealability was issued.
What happened
Jerome Anthony Thomas III v. Clay County Correctional Facility concerned Thomas’s petition asking a federal court to review his detention. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended denying the petition.
The recommendation said Thomas had not finished pursuing his claims in state court and that his speedy-trial rights had not been violated. It also recommended denying his request to proceed without paying filing fees and issuing no certificate allowing an appeal.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez found no clear error, accepted the recommendation, and denied the petition without prejudice. She also issued no certificate of appealability and denied the fee-waiver request as moot.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. Clay County Correctional Facility · No. 0:26-cv-01867
- Katherine Menendez
- Apr. 16, 2026
Background
Jerome Anthony Thomas III filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asking for federal review of his detention. He also applied to proceed without paying filing fees.
Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation dated March 17, 2026. The recommendation stated that Thomas’s petition should be denied because he had not exhausted his claims in state court and because his speedy-trial rights had not been violated. It also recommended denying Thomas’s application to proceed without paying filing fees and issuing no certificate of appealability, which is a document required for certain habeas appeals.
Court’s Review and Ruling
The order states that Thomas did not object to the recommendation within the objection period or during the additional two weeks afterward. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, and accepted it.
The court ordered that the Report and Recommendation be accepted; Thomas’s petition be denied without prejudice; no certificate of appealability be issued; and Thomas’s application to proceed without paying filing fees be denied as moot. “Without prejudice” means the order does not itself state that refiling is barred. Judge Katherine M. Menendez signed the order on April 16, 2026.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.