Friend v. Johnson Piper

Background

Terrance J. Friend was committed indefinitely to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program in 1996 after serving a 12-year prison sentence for criminal sexual conduct convictions. He was committed as a sexual psychopathic personality and sexually dangerous person.

Friend filed a state-court habeas petition in 2013 challenging the constitutionality of his commitment. The state district court denied the petition, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Minnesota Supreme Court denied review. Friend filed another state habeas petition in 2016. The state district court denied that petition as barred by res judicata, meaning that the claims had already been raised or could have been raised earlier. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Minnesota Supreme Court denied review.

Friend then filed this federal petition. Although he identified 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the magistrate judge treated it as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because Friend was held under state, rather than federal, authority. Friend challenged the 2016 state-court decision and alleged violations of due process, separation of powers, double jeopardy, and the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act.

Issues and analysis

The court reviewed Friend’s specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation from July 11, 2018. It rejected Friend’s objection to treating his petition as arising under § 2254, explaining that § 2241 applies to people held under federal authority and that the change in statutory framework did not affect the analysis.

The court held that Friend’s claims were procedurally barred. A federal court generally will not review a federal claim when the state court’s decision rests on an independent and adequate state-law ground. The state court had found that six claims were raised in Friend’s 2013 petition and that another claim could have been raised then. Friend did not show a legally sufficient reason for the default, actual harm resulting from the alleged federal violation, or that refusing review would cause a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

The court also agreed with the magistrate judge’s other grounds for dismissal: the petition was barred by the one-year statute of limitations, and Friend had failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his fourth ground for relief. The court separately agreed that a certificate of appealability should not issue.

Disposition

The court overruled Friend’s objections and adopted the report and recommendation. It granted Emily Johnson Piper’s motion to dismiss, denied Friend’s habeas petition, dismissed the action with prejudice, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. The court also terminated Friend’s motion to accept his objections as unnecessary.