Senty-Haugen v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
Arthur Dale Senty-Haugen v. Minnesota Department of Human Services; and Minnesota Sex Offender Program
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-03377
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Senty-Haugen v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, Judge Menendez denied Senty-Haugen’s request for a certificate of appealability and application to proceed without paying fees.
Arthur Dale Senty-Haugen, whose district-court application for a certificate of appealability and application to proceed without paying fees were denied.
What happened
In Arthur Dale Senty-Haugen v. Minnesota Department of Human Services and Minnesota Sex Offender Program, the court had previously denied Senty-Haugen’s petition challenging his detention and declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal. He then filed a notice of appeal and applications for that certificate and to proceed without paying fees.
The court denied the certificate application to the extent it was directed to the district court. It said Senty-Haugen had not shown a serious constitutional issue that could justify an appeal. The court explained that his notice of appeal could serve as an application to the appeals court for a certificate.
The court also denied Senty-Haugen’s application to proceed without paying fees. Although it found that he qualified financially, it concluded that the appeal was not being taken in good faith for the same reasons it had declined to issue a certificate. Judge Menendez entered the order on May 6, 2026.
The detailed version
- Senty-Haugen v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · No. 0:25-cv-03377
- Katherine Menendez
- May 6, 2026
Background
In a March 24, 2026 order, the court adopted Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster’s report and recommendation and denied Arthur Dale Senty-Haugen’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is a procedure for challenging unlawful custody or detention. The court also agreed that no certificate of appealability should issue.
On April 29, 2026, Senty-Haugen filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, an application to proceed without paying fees, and an application for a certificate of appealability that was captioned as intended for the Eighth Circuit.
Certificate of Appealability
The court denied the certificate-of-appealability application to the extent Senty-Haugen sought a certificate from the district court. A certificate of appealability requires a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court relied on its earlier conclusion that no reasonable judge would find it debatable whether the petition should have been dismissed.
The court stated that, to the extent Senty-Haugen sought a certificate from the Eighth Circuit, his notice of appeal served that purpose. The district court did not issue a certificate for the appeal.
Application to Proceed Without Paying Fees
The court also denied Senty-Haugen’s application to proceed without paying fees. Under the applicable rules, an appeal may proceed without prepayment of fees only if it is taken in good faith. The court said that Senty-Haugen qualified financially but that his appeal did not meet the good-faith requirement because of the same reasons supporting denial of the certificate of appealability.
Disposition
Judge Katherine M. Menendez ordered that Senty-Haugen’s request for a certificate of appealability from the district court was DENIED and that his application to proceed without paying fees was DENIED.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.