King v. State of Minnesota
- Joan Ericksen
- 0:17-cv-05346
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In King v. State of Minnesota, Judge Ericksen dismissed King’s petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust remedies and denied his related motions.
Calvin Thomas King’s federal habeas petition and related motions were dismissed or denied. The State of Minnesota and County of Hennepin were the respondents, but the order did not decide the underlying claims against them.
What happened
In King v. State of Minnesota, Calvin Thomas King asked for federal habeas relief under a law governing challenges to state custody-related proceedings. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal because King had not used all available state-court remedies, and King objected to the recommendation.
After independently reviewing the matter, the court adopted the recommendation. It dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, denied King’s application to proceed without paying filing fees, and denied two other motions.
Judge Joan N. Ericksen also denied a certificate of appealability, finding that reasonable judges would not debate whether the court’s decision was wrong. The order did not decide the underlying claims because it dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust remedies.
The detailed version
- King v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:17-cv-05346
- Joan Ericksen
- Aug. 9, 2018
Background
Calvin Thomas King filed a petition seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter came before Judge Joan N. Ericksen on a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel. The recommendation advised dismissing the petition because King had not exhausted all available state-court remedies. It also advised denying King’s application to proceed without paying filing fees and denying two miscellaneous motions, identified as ECF Nos. 9 and 10.
King filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation. The district court conducted a de novo review, meaning it independently reviewed the challenged recommendations. The opinion states that King did not appear to object to the recommendation concerning exhaustion, the application to proceed without paying filing fees, or the two miscellaneous motions.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the available record suggested King had not exhausted his state-court options. It therefore accepted the recommendation to dismiss for failure to exhaust. The opinion cites the rule that a person seeking federal habeas relief generally must give the state courts an opportunity to address the claims first.
The court also accepted the recommendations to deny King’s application to proceed without paying filing fees and to deny the two miscellaneous motions. The order’s final paragraph describes the dismissal as being for failure to exhaust “administrative remedies,” while the court’s discussion describes the unexhausted remedies as state-court options.
The court further found that King had not shown that reasonable jurists would debate whether the disposition was wrong. It therefore denied a certificate of appealability, which is a document generally required to appeal the denial of federal habeas relief.
Disposition
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation and ordered:
- The matter was DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. - King’s application to proceed in forma pauperis—that is, without paying filing fees—was DENIED. - King’s motion for an order at ECF No. 9 was DENIED. - King’s motion to correct the docket at ECF No. 10 was DENIED. - A certificate of appealability was DENIED.
The court did not reach the merits of King’s underlying habeas claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.