Smith v. Leslie
- Susan Nelson
- 0:18-cv-03481
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
Smith v. Leslie: Judge Nelson dismissed Smith’s petition without prejudice as premature, denied discovery motions, and overruled his objections.
The order primarily affected Joshua Bernard Smith by dismissing his federal petition without prejudice and denying his discovery requests. It also denied a certificate of appealability.
What happened
In Smith v. Leslie, Joshua Bernard Smith asked a federal court to release him from state custody based on arguments that the state court lacked authority over him. He filed the petition while his state criminal case was still pending.
The court found that Smith had not yet given Minnesota courts a full opportunity to consider his claims because his time to appeal had not expired when he filed the petition. The court therefore did not decide whether Smith’s arguments had merit.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Smith’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations, and dismissed the petition without prejudice. She also denied Smith’s discovery requests and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Leslie · No. 0:18-cv-03481
- Susan Nelson
- July 26, 2019
Background
Joshua Bernard Smith, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to release him from state custody. He argued that he was a “registered business entity” and had not agreed to the state court’s authority over him. The petition was filed on December 17, 2018, while his state criminal case was still pending.
Smith had been charged in Dakota County, Minnesota, after a vehicle stop. He was later found guilty of a fifth-degree controlled substance offense and two counts of driving while impaired, and he was sentenced to 87 months’ imprisonment on March 20, 2019.
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation and Smith’s Objections
The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the petition without prejudice because it was premature. A state prisoner generally must first give the state courts an opportunity to consider the claims before seeking federal review. When Smith filed his petition, his time to appeal had not yet expired. The magistrate judge also recommended denying Smith’s requests for written discovery and his motion to compel discovery.
Smith objected, arguing that he had already used the state-court process and that the petition was not premature. He also objected to a statement in a footnote suggesting that his claims were unlikely to succeed.
Ruling
Judge Susan Richard Nelson independently reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation. She concluded that Smith had filed the petition prematurely because his state criminal case was still pending and his appeal period had not yet run. The court emphasized that it was dismissing the petition without prejudice based on this timing and exhaustion problem, not deciding the merits of Smith’s arguments.
The court overruled Smith’s objections and affirmed and adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. It dismissed the § 2254 petition without prejudice, denied Smith’s demand for written discovery and his motion to compel discovery, and denied a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal an adverse decision on a § 2254 petition.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.