Carlson v. State of Minnesota

Background

David R. Carlson filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law governing state prisoners’ petitions challenging custody. United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be dismissed because it was an improper second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The recommendation also advised that no certificate of appealability be issued.

Objection and review

Carlson timely objected to the Report and Recommendation. His only specific objection concerned the recommendation’s description of when his trial attorney allegedly made a statement related to Carlson’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. The court concluded that the factual allegations underlying that claim did not affect the legally sound conclusion that the petition was an improper successive petition, so it overruled the objection.

Because Carlson did not object to the remaining portions of the recommendation, the court reviewed those portions for clear error. The court found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright ordered that Carlson’s objection be overruled and that the April 4, 2019 Report and Recommendation be adopted. The court dismissed Carlson’s § 2254 petition without prejudice. It also declined to grant a certificate of appealability, which is a document required for an appeal in certain federal habeas proceedings.

The order did not decide the merits of Carlson’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel allegations; it dismissed the petition based on the court’s conclusion that it was an improper second or successive petition.