Ramey v. Abot

Background

Scott Ramey, a Minnesota state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer (pro se), filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal statute allowing people imprisoned pursuant to a state court judgment to challenge their confinement in federal court on constitutional grounds. He was convicted by a Minnesota state-court jury of first- and third-degree criminal sexual conduct in March 2021 and sentenced in July 2021 to 280 months of imprisonment.

Ramey pursued a direct appeal. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions on August 8, 2022, and the Minnesota Supreme Court denied further review on November 15, 2022. He then filed a pro se state postconviction petition on February 2, 2023. The state court denied it on March 13, 2023, finding his claims procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed on September 5, 2023, and the Minnesota Supreme Court denied further review on December 19, 2023.

Ramey signed the instant § 2254 petition on May 7, 2026; the Clerk's Office received it on May 13, 2026.

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on May 19, 2026, recommending: (1) denying the petition as untimely; (2) dismissing the action; and (3) denying as moot Ramey's application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs (commonly called an IFP, or in forma pauperis, application).

The magistrate judge determined that the one-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) began running on December 20, 2023 — the day after the Minnesota Supreme Court denied further review of Ramey's postconviction petition — and expired on December 20, 2024. Ramey's petition, filed in May 2026, was thus over two years late. The magistrate judge also found no basis for equitable tolling (a doctrine that can pause or extend a deadline in exceptional circumstances) and no actual innocence gateway exception.

Ramey's Objections

Ramey submitted objections consisting of handwritten notations in the margins of his copy of the R&R. He challenged the magistrate judge's finding that he had identified no extraordinary circumstance preventing timely filing, asserting that health issues were to blame — referencing a medical diagnosis or event in 2022 and a separate undated medical diagnosis. He also appeared to assert actual innocence, writing marginal notes suggesting juror bias and prosecutorial misconduct at trial. He further alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for trial counsel's failure to request a mistrial.

Court's Analysis

Standard of Review

The district court reviews a magistrate judge's recommendations on dispositive matters (those that end a case) de novo — meaning independently and without deference to the magistrate judge — as to the portions a party objects to. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Timeliness

Federal law imposes a one-year statute of limitations on § 2254 petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The limitations period runs from the latest of several possible dates, including the date the judgment became final after direct review. The court agreed with the magistrate judge that Ramey's deadline ran from December 20, 2023, and expired December 20, 2024. Ramey did not specifically object to those dates. Because his petition was filed in May 2026, it was untimely by over two years.

Equitable Tolling

Because § 2244(d) is a statute of limitations — not a jurisdictional bar — a petitioner may invoke equitable tolling if he shows: (1) diligent pursuit of his rights; and (2) some extraordinary circumstance beyond his control that prevented timely filing. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 645 (2010); Nelson v. Norris, 618 F.3d 886, 892 (8th Cir. 2010).

The court found Ramey's health-related argument insufficient on both prongs. First, he provided no documentation of his medical conditions. Second, and critically, those conditions did not prevent him from filing a state postconviction petition in February 2023 — within the federal limitations period. The court further found no showing of diligent pursuit of federal habeas rights: Ramey missed the deadline by two years and four months and failed to demonstrate that he utilized the time available to him within the limitations period, as required under Williams v. Kelley, 830 F.3d 770, 772–73 (8th Cir. 2016). The court also noted that Ramey had not raised his health issues as a basis for tolling in the petition itself.

Actual Innocence Gateway

A credible claim of actual innocence can overcome the habeas statute of limitations. McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 389–400 (2013). To qualify, a petitioner must present new reliable evidence — evidence not available at trial through the exercise of due diligence — that is so strong that the court concludes it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted in light of it. Id. at 399, 401; Kidd v. Norman, 651 F.3d 947, 953 (8th Cir. 2011).

The court found that Ramey pointed to no new reliable evidence of innocence. His marginal notations expressed disagreement with the trial outcome and made allegations about juror composition, prosecutorial conduct, and a police officer's testimony, but did not present the type of new evidence required to invoke the actual innocence gateway.

Certificate of Appealability

A state prisoner cannot appeal a federal court's adverse ruling on a § 2254 petition without a certificate of appealability (a court-issued permission slip to appeal). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Such a certificate requires a substantial showing that the petitioner was denied a constitutional right — meaning reasonable jurists would find the court's assessment debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The court found Ramey made no such showing and declined to issue the certificate.

Disposition

Judge Nelson overruled Ramey's objections, adopted the R&R in its entirety, denied the § 2254 petition as untimely, dismissed the action, denied the IFP application as moot, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.