Andersen v. Stenseth
Travis Clay Andersen v. Lisa Stenseth, MCF-RC Warden; and Paul Schnell, MN DOC Commissioner
- Leo Brisbois
- 0:26-cv-02845
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Andersen v. Stenseth, Judge Brisbois recommended denying the habeas petition as untimely and unavailable for the old conviction.
The recommendation affects Travis Clay Andersen’s federal challenge to his old assault conviction. It recommends denying the petition and issuing no certificate of appealability; the document is not yet a final district court order.
What happened
Travis Clay Andersen asked the federal court to review an old state assault conviction, which he believed had been used to increase a later sentence. The state courts rejected his challenge as too late.
The court said the federal petition was filed well after the one-year deadline, which began when the assault conviction became final in 2007 and ended in 2008. It also said Andersen was not in custody under that conviction because his probation ended in 2008.
Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended denying the petition and issuing no certificate of appealability. The recommendation is not a final district court order, and the notice allows written objections.
The detailed version
- Andersen v. Stenseth · No. 0:26-cv-02845
- Leo Brisbois
- June 5, 2026
Background
Travis Clay Andersen filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to challenge the validity of a state misdemeanor fifth-degree assault conviction. Almost two decades earlier, he entered an Alford plea to that charge and received probation, which ended in 2008. Andersen later was convicted of aggravated harassment and believed the older assault conviction had been used to enhance that sentence.
More than 16 years after his probation ended, Andersen sought postconviction relief in state court concerning the assault conviction. The state courts rejected that petition as untimely. He then filed this federal habeas petition in 2026.
Court’s analysis
The court considered the petition during preservice review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. It concluded that the petition was barred by the one-year federal limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The court found that the alternative starting dates for state interference, a newly recognized constitutional right, or a newly discoverable factual basis did not apply. The limitations period therefore began when the conviction became final in 2007, after the deadline for a direct appeal passed, and expired one year later in 2008.
The court also identified a separate custody barrier. Federal habeas relief generally requires a petitioner to be in custody under the conviction or sentence being challenged when the petition is filed. Although Andersen was incarcerated when he filed the petition, the court found that he was not in custody under the old assault conviction because the probationary term for that conviction had ended many years earlier.
Recommendation and procedural posture
The Report and Recommendation states that the petition should be denied and the action dismissed. Its specific recommendations are that Andersen’s habeas petition be DENIED and that no certificate of appealability be issued. A certificate of appealability is required for an appeal from certain federal habeas decisions. The document is a magistrate judge’s recommendation, not a final district court order or judgment, and it is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. The notice says that a party may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.