Brown v. Minnesota Dept. of Corrections and Kathy Halvorson

Background

The court reviewed a Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster. The recommendation advised denying Remona Lysa Brown’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus because it was filed after the applicable limitations period. A habeas petition is a request for federal-court review of a person’s custody.

Brown argued that she had not intended to file a new petition. She said she intended to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 in a different case, identified as No. 23-cv-1998 (PAM/ECW). The opinion states that Brown did file a Rule 60 motion in that case. The court held that it could not grant relief requested in one case through another case and denied that request.

Brown also objected to the finding that her petition was untimely. She argued that the court should treat it as timely because she is legally blind. The court stated that she filed the petition nearly four months after the limitations period expired. It acknowledged her impaired eyesight and her status as a person representing herself, but held that she still had to comply with applicable procedural rules.

Ruling

The court conducted the review required for specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation and found no error in the recommendation’s reasoning. Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied Brown’s habeas petition as untimely.

The court also denied Brown’s motion to consider a medical eye exam as moot. It dismissed the matter without prejudice, meaning the opinion did not bar refiling on that basis. The court denied a certificate of appealability because Brown had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The order directed that judgment be entered.