Clark v. Schnell

Background

Nathan Daniel Clark pleaded guilty in Minnesota state court to second-degree murder in 2000. He had previously challenged the conviction and sentence in two federal petitions. The first petition was denied as untimely, and the second was dismissed because Clark had not obtained authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Clark filed the present petition on January 15, 2020, again challenging the same conviction and sentence. United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer recommended dismissing the matter without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, denying Clark’s motion for appointment of counsel, and declining to issue a certificate of appealability. Clark filed objections, and Paul Schnell and Shannon Reimann did not respond.

Court’s Analysis

The district court reviewed Clark’s objections independently, as required when a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Because Clark was representing himself, the court read his objections liberally.

The court concluded that Clark’s petition was a “second or successive” habeas petition because it challenged a conviction and sentence that he had already challenged in earlier federal petitions. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), Clark had to obtain authorization from the Eighth Circuit before filing the new petition. Clark argued that he could not have discovered earlier that his trial counsel had waived an omnibus hearing in violation of his due-process rights and Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.02. The court rejected that argument because Clark did not show that the factual basis for those claims—the alleged absence of an omnibus hearing—was not reasonably available when he filed his earlier petitions. The court noted that Clark had participated in the state-court proceedings and that he relied on a publicly available Register of Actions.

The court also rejected Clark’s objection to the denial of appointed counsel. Clark argued that he would be at a significant disadvantage because of the court proceedings and complex DNA issues, but the court found that he had not identified a factual or legal basis warranting appointment of counsel.

The court further concluded that Clark had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. Therefore, no certificate of appealability would issue. The court reviewed the remaining portions of the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Disposition

The court overruled Clark’s objections and adopted the February 27, 2020 report and recommendation. It dismissed the matter without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, denied Clark’s motion for appointment of counsel, and ordered that no certificate of appealability issue.