Amen El v. Schnell
- John Tunheim
- 0:18-cv-02545
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 10
In Amen El v. Schnell, Judge Tunheim denied two habeas petitions, finding some claims procedurally defaulted and rejecting the speedy-trial challenge.
The order affected Pharaoh El-Forever Amen El, who was challenging his Minnesota convictions and prison sentences, and Paul Schnell in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
What happened
In Pharaoh El-Forever Amen El v. Paul Schnell, the court reviewed Amen El’s challenges to his state criminal convictions. He argued that the state violated his rights through discovery problems, trial delays, due process violations, and denial of freedom to contract.
The court ruled that several claims were procedurally defaulted because Amen El had not properly presented them to the state courts. It also upheld the state court’s conclusion that the trial delay did not violate his right to a speedy trial because he had not shown the required prejudice.
Judge Tunheim overruled Amen El’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and denied both habeas petitions. The court also denied default judgment, denied the second case’s request to proceed without paying filing fees, granted the motion to supplement to the extent the supplement had already been filed, and declined to issue certificates allowing an appeal.
The detailed version
- Amen El v. Schnell · No. 0:18-cv-02545
- John Tunheim
- Apr. 13, 2020
Background
Pharaoh El-Forever Amen El filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging convictions from a Minnesota attempted-murder case. The state case involved attempted second-degree murder, drive-by shooting, and firearm possession by an ineligible person. During the proceedings, the state received DNA evidence, and the trial court granted a one-week continuance. Amen El later waived his speedy-trial right, and the trial was continued until late October 2015. He was convicted on all counts in November 2015 and received a 203-month sentence.
In his federal petition, Amen El asserted four grounds: that he was forced to choose between constitutional rights because of a discovery violation; that his speedy-trial right was violated; that his due process rights were violated; and that his First Amendment rights were violated because he was denied freedom to contract. Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer recommended denying the petition. Amen El objected and also filed a motion for default judgment, a motion to supplement, and a second habeas petition raising the same claims.
Court’s Analysis
The district court reviewed the properly made objections independently. It held that claims one and three were procedurally defaulted. Procedural default means that a federal court generally will not consider a state prisoner’s federal claim when the prisoner did not fairly present that claim to the state courts. The court found that Amen El had not specifically presented an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim or a due process claim in state court. The adopted recommendation also identified claim four as procedurally defaulted.
The court separately addressed the speedy-trial claim under the four-factor test from Barker v. Wingo: the length of the delay, the reason for it, whether the defendant asserted the right, and prejudice caused by the delay. The court concluded that the state court reasonably applied that test. Amen El would not have been released before trial because he was facing, and was later convicted of, more serious charges. The state diligently pursued the prosecution, and the record did not show that the nine-month delay that Amen El requested impaired his defense. The court also overruled as moot his objection concerning the one-week continuance because the magistrate judge had considered the longer delay as well.
Rulings
The court overruled Amen El’s objections and adopted the Report and Recommendation. It denied the original § 2254 petition and denied the second petition in case number 20-547 because it raised the same claims. It denied Amen El’s motion for default judgment, granted his motion to supplement to the extent that he had already filed a proposed supplement, and denied his application to proceed without paying filing fees in the second case. Finally, Judge Tunheim declined to certify the issues in either petition for appeal because Amen El had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.