Harvey v. State of Minnesota
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:19-cv-03194
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Nigeria Lee Harvey v. State of Minnesota, Judge Magnuson denied Harvey’s habeas petition, rejecting his Fourth Amendment, counsel, and prosecutorial-misconduct claims.
Nigeria Lee Harvey’s federal petition was denied. The State of Minnesota remained the respondent, and no Certificate of Appealability issued.
What happened
Nigeria Lee Harvey asked the federal court for relief under a federal law governing challenges to state-court custody. He objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation that his petition be denied.
Harvey argued that he should be allowed to relitigate his Fourth Amendment challenge involving the collection of cell-location data. He also argued that his trial lawyer was ineffective for not making that challenge and that the prosecutor acted improperly by using the data.
Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the recommendation, denied Harvey’s petition, and denied a certificate allowing an appeal. The court ruled that Harvey had already received a full and fair opportunity to litigate the Fourth Amendment issue, and that his lawyer and prosecutorial-misconduct claims lacked merit because the authorization for collecting the data included a probable-cause determination.
The detailed version
- Harvey v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:19-cv-03194
- Paul Magnuson
- July 10, 2020
Background
The court reviewed United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung’s June 12, 2020 Report and Recommendation, which recommended denying Nigeria Lee Harvey’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Harvey filed timely objections. District Judge Paul A. Magnuson conducted the required de novo review of the portions to which Harvey objected and adopted the recommendation.
Fourth Amendment claim
Harvey argued that Kimmelman v. Morrison had overruled or weakened Stone v. Powell’s limitation on federal review of Fourth Amendment claims in state-court cases. The court rejected that argument. It explained that Kimmelman did not overrule Stone; instead, Kimmelman declined to apply Stone’s restriction to Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance claims based on the handling of Fourth Amendment issues. Because the two constitutional claims remain distinct, Harvey could not use an ineffective-assistance claim to relitigate a Fourth Amendment claim barred by Stone. The court agreed that Harvey had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the Fourth Amendment issue in state court and denied relief on that claim.
Ineffective-assistance and prosecutorial-misconduct claims
Harvey claimed that his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to argue that a court order authorizing the collection of his cell-location data did not satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. He also claimed that the prosecutor committed misconduct by using the allegedly unlawful evidence.
The court held that the Minnesota Supreme Court had already addressed these claims. It relied on that court’s determination that the authorization order contained a probable-cause determination and therefore satisfied the requirements identified in Carpenter v. United States. Because an argument that would have failed on the merits cannot establish ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, the court concluded that Harvey was not entitled to relief on the ineffective-assistance or prosecutorial-misconduct claims.
Disposition
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation, denied Harvey’s § 2254 petition, and ordered that no Certificate of Appealability issue because reasonable judges could not disagree about whether Harvey was entitled to relief. The order was entered by Judge Paul A. Magnuson on July 10, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.