Ramey v. Abot
- Susan Nelson
- 0:26-cv-02602
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Ramey v. Abot, Judge Nelson denied Scott Ramey's state-prisoner petition for federal court review as filed more than two years past the one-year deadline.
State prisoners who miss the one-year federal filing deadline for challenging their convictions in federal court, particularly those who rely on undocumented health issues or general claims of innocence to excuse late filings.
What happened
In Ramey v. Abot (Case No. 26-cv-2602), Scott Ramey, a Minnesota state prisoner convicted of first- and third-degree criminal sexual conduct, asked a federal court to review his conviction by filing a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal law that allows state prisoners to challenge their confinement in federal court. His petition raised claims of insufficient evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, juror bias, and ineffective assistance of counsel — all issues that arose at his 2021 trial and sentencing.
The central problem was timing. After the Minnesota Supreme Court denied review of Ramey's state postconviction appeal on December 19, 2023, he had one year — until December 20, 2024 — to file his federal petition. He did not sign and date it until May 7, 2026, more than two years and four months late. Ramey argued that health problems prevented him from filing on time, but he provided no medical documentation, and the court noted that those same health conditions had not stopped him from filing a state court petition in February 2023. The court also found he presented no new evidence of actual innocence — only disagreement with the jury's verdict — which is insufficient to overcome the missed deadline.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Ramey's objections, adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in full, denied Ramey's petition as untimely, dismissed the action, denied as moot his application to proceed without paying court fees and his Motion to Dismiss, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability, meaning Ramey cannot appeal this ruling without first obtaining permission from a higher court.
The detailed version
- Ramey v. Abot · No. 0:26-cv-02602
- Susan Nelson
- July 22, 2026
Background
Scott Ramey is a Minnesota state prisoner who was convicted by a jury in March 2021 of first- and third-degree criminal sexual conduct. In July 2021, the state court sentenced him to 280 months of imprisonment. Ramey pursued a direct appeal; the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions in an unpublished opinion on August 8, 2022, and the Minnesota Supreme Court denied further review on November 15, 2022.
On February 2, 2023, Ramey filed a pro se (self-represented) petition for postconviction relief in state court. The state court denied the petition on March 13, 2023, finding the claims procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, a Minnesota doctrine that bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed on September 5, 2023, and the Minnesota Supreme Court denied further review on December 19, 2023.
Ramey signed and dated the instant federal habeas petition — a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal court review of a state criminal conviction — on May 7, 2026. The Clerk's Office received it on May 13, 2026.
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on May 19, 2026, recommending: (1) denial of Ramey's § 2254 petition as untimely; (2) dismissal of the action; and (3) denial of Ramey's application to proceed without prepaying court fees (commonly called an IFP, or in forma pauperis, application) as moot. The magistrate judge determined that the one-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) began running on December 20, 2023 — the day after the Minnesota Supreme Court's final denial — and expired on December 20, 2024. Because Ramey did not file until May 2026, the petition was more than two years late. The magistrate judge also found no basis for equitable tolling (a doctrine that can pause a deadline in exceptional circumstances) and no showing of actual innocence.
Ramey's Objections
Ramey filed handwritten objections in the margins of his copy of the R&R. He raised four arguments:
- Health issues: He contended that medical problems prevented him from filing on time, referencing a medical diagnosis or event in 2022 and another undated diagnosis.
- Actual innocence: He appeared to argue that new, reliable evidence would show that no reasonable juror would have convicted him, writing in the margin references to alleged jury bias (noting the composition of the jury) and a police officer's allegedly conflicting testimony about dates.
- Ineffective assistance of counsel: He claimed his trial attorney failed to request a mistrial.
- Prosecutorial misconduct: He asserted, without further detail, that he was removed from court three times due to prosecutorial lies that tainted the jury and should have prompted a mistrial.
District Court's Analysis
Timeliness
Judge Nelson agreed with the magistrate judge that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) — which starts the one-year clock from when the judgment becomes final on direct review — applies here. Ramey did not challenge the magistrate judge's determination that subsections (B) (state-created impediment), (C) (newly recognized constitutional right), and (D) (newly discovered factual predicate) were inapplicable. Because the limitations period ended on December 20, 2024, and Ramey did not file until May 2026, his petition is untimely absent an exception.
Equitable Tolling
Equitable tolling is available only if a petitioner demonstrates: (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 (2010); Nelson v. Norris, 618 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2010). The court rejected Ramey's medical-issues argument for two reasons. First, he provided no documentation of the claimed conditions. Second, and more fundamentally, the same health conditions did not prevent him from filing a state postconviction petition in February 2023. Even assuming some extraordinary circumstance existed, Ramey could not satisfy the diligence prong: he missed the deadline by two years and four months and showed no use of the time available within the limitations period, citing Williams v. Kelley, 830 F.3d 770 (8th Cir. 2016).
Actual Innocence Gateway
A petitioner may overcome the habeas statute of limitations by making a credible claim of actual innocence — specifically, by presenting new, reliable evidence showing it is "more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him." McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). Such evidence must not have been available at trial through the exercise of due diligence. Kidd v. Norman, 651 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2011). The court found that Ramey pointed to no new, reliable evidence of innocence; his objections reflected disagreement with the trial outcome rather than the kind of new evidence the doctrine requires.
Certificate of Appealability
A certificate of appealability (COA) — permission to appeal a denial of a § 2254 petition — requires a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," meaning reasonable jurists would find the court's assessment debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000). The court found Ramey had not made that showing and declined to issue a COA.
Disposition
Judge Nelson:
- Adopted the R&R in its entirety;
- Overruled Ramey's objections;
- Denied Ramey's § 2254 petition as untimely;
- Dismissed the action;
- Denied Ramey's application to proceed without prepaying fees as moot;
- Denied Ramey's Motion to Dismiss as moot; and
- Declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.