Rucker v. Miles
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:18-cv-01153
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Rucker v. Miles, Judge Tostrud dismissed Rucker’s federal petition with prejudice after overruling his objections and accepting the recommendation.
Renard Rucker’s federal petition was dismissed with prejudice. The respondent’s motion to dismiss was granted, and the judgment ended this case.
What happened
Renard Rucker represented himself when he filed a federal petition raising three claims that his lawyer had been ineffective. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended dismissing the petition because all three claims had been procedurally defaulted, meaning Rucker had not properly raised them earlier. The recommendation also said that, even if one claim was not defaulted, Rucker had not shown the required harm from his lawyer’s alleged error.
Rucker objected to the recommendation. The respondent said the objections raised no new issues and filed no further response.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud conducted the required fresh review, overruled Rucker’s objections, accepted the recommendation, granted the motion to dismiss, and dismissed the petition with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Rucker v. Miles · No. 0:18-cv-01153
- Eric Tostrud
- Mar. 25, 2019
Background
Renard Rucker filed this action without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He asserted three ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. The case came before the court on Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz’s Report and Recommendation.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Schultz recommended dismissing the petition with prejudice because all three claims were procedurally defaulted. Procedural default generally means that a claim was not properly presented through the required earlier state-court process. The recommendation alternatively concluded that, if one claim was not defaulted, Rucker still failed to meet his burden of showing prejudice under the second part of the ineffective-assistance test established by Strickland v. Washington.
Rucker filed objections. The respondent stated that the objections raised no new issues and therefore filed no additional response.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
Because Rucker objected, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation independently as required by federal law and the District of Minnesota’s local rules. Judge Tostrud concluded that Magistrate Judge Schultz’s analysis and conclusions were correct.
The court ordered that Rucker’s objections be overruled, the Report and Recommendation be accepted, the motion to dismiss be granted, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice. The court also directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.