Udoh v. Knutson

Background

Emem Ufot Udoh filed a petition challenging his custody and raising claims connected to state post-conviction proceedings, immigration proceedings, and alleged actual innocence. Udoh represented himself. The court reviewed a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer and adopted it after conducting its own review of the record.

The court stated that Udoh’s claims included claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claims that had not yet been exhausted, and a claim concerning access to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The court also relied on Udoh’s earlier § 2254 petition in a prior related proceeding in concluding that the current petition was a successive § 2254 petition. The opinion states that the court lacked jurisdiction over some claims and that others were not yet ripe, meaning the facts were not sufficiently developed for judicial review.

Motions and Analysis

The court denied Udoh’s first motion for a 60-day extension because he had not shown good cause. It noted that he had already submitted and reviewed the record, filed a lengthy motion for injunctive relief citing numerous cases, and filed a motion to amend responding to the Report and Recommendation.

Udoh sought an injunction requiring the Minnesota Court of Appeals to accept a notice of appeal, staying state and immigration proceedings, and releasing him while the federal petition was pending. The court denied the motion as moot because it dismissed the petition. It separately stated that the request involving the Minnesota Court of Appeals was dismissed as moot because there was no open federal case on which an injunction could be based. The court also rejected Udoh’s due-process and court-access arguments, finding that the materials he submitted showed options for seeking review or filing a new notice of appeal.

The court interpreted Udoh’s filing titled “Motion to Amend the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Actual Innocence Petition” as a motion to amend rather than another extension request. It denied amendment because Udoh did not explain how he would amend the petition to avoid treatment as a successive § 2254 petition. The court concluded that none of the claims in the original petition survived dismissal.

The court interpreted another filing and its accompanying application as an application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, rather than a second extension request. Because the petition was dismissed, it denied that application as moot. The court also denied appointment of counsel because it found no need for an evidentiary hearing, no unusual legal complexity, and no reason that counsel would assist Udoh or the court.

The court denied Udoh’s request to stay the case while he pursued state post-conviction relief, completed immigration proceedings, and addressed parental-rights proceedings. It found that he had not identified a claim for which a one-year limitations period would expire without a stay, and that the circumstances he cited did not justify staying claims over which the court lacked jurisdiction or that were not ripe.

Finally, the court denied Udoh’s request for a new evidentiary hearing because it found that the existing record conclusively showed that he was not entitled to relief.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed Udoh’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. It denied both motions for an extension of time, the motion for injunctive relief, the motion to amend, the application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, the motion for appointment of counsel, the motion for stay and abeyance, and the motion for a new evidentiary hearing. No certificate of appealability was issued, and the court directed that judgment be entered.