Mulvihill v. Bosch
- Susan Nelson
- 0:20-cv-01741
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Mulvihill v. Bosch, Judge Nelson dismissed Mulvihill’s petition as untimely and denied his related motions.
Carl Adam Mulvihill was affected by the dismissal of his petition challenging his state conviction, the denial of his filing-fee application and motion to vacate, and the denial of a certificate of appealability. Guy Bosch, identified as the warden, was the respondent.
What happened
In Mulvihill v. Bosch, Carl Adam Mulvihill challenged his Minnesota conviction, arguing that Minnesota lacked authority to investigate, charge, arrest, or convict him. He also argued that the one-year filing deadline for federal petitions challenging state convictions did not apply to his authority-based challenge.
Mulvihill further claimed that Minnesota delayed him by withholding case documents until June 2018. The court declined to consider that argument because he had not raised it before the magistrate judge and, in any event, had not explained what documents were withheld or how the withholding violated federal law or prevented timely filing.
Judge Nelson overruled Mulvihill’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed the petition, denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee, denied his motion to vacate his sentence and convictions, and declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal. The opinion’s discussion states that the matter was dismissed with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Mulvihill v. Bosch · No. 0:20-cv-01741
- Susan Nelson
- Dec. 8, 2020
Background
Carl Adam Mulvihill, identified as proceeding without a lawyer, pleaded guilty in 2010 to three counts of first-degree criminal sexual assault. On August 10, 2020, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, meaning a request for federal relief from custody under a state-court judgment. He argued that the State of Minnesota lacked jurisdiction to investigate, charge, arrest, or convict him. He also filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee and a motion to vacate his sentence, convictions, and charges.
Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson recommended denying the petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), dismissing the action with prejudice, denying a certificate of appealability, denying the filing-fee application, and denying the motion to vacate. Mulvihill objected to the recommendation concerning timeliness and the certificate of appealability, but he did not object to the recommendations concerning his filing-fee application or motion to vacate.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the one-year limitation period in § 2244(d) applies to a person held under a state-court judgment, including a person raising a jurisdictional challenge to a conviction. The court therefore rejected Mulvihill’s argument that the deadline did not apply to his petition.
Mulvihill also argued in his objection that Minnesota had prevented timely filing by withholding necessary documents until June 2018. The court did not consider that argument because he had not presented it to the magistrate judge. The court added that, even if considered, Mulvihill had not identified the documents, explained why their absence prevented timely filing, or shown that the state’s actions violated federal law. The court concluded that the exception allowing the limitation period to begin when a state-created filing impediment is removed did not apply.
The court found that the basis for dismissal was not reasonably debatable and therefore denied a certificate of appealability. Because Mulvihill had not objected to the other recommendations, the court adopted them as well.
Disposition
Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Mulvihill’s objection and adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court dismissed the petition, denied the application to proceed without paying the filing fee, denied the motion to vacate the sentence and convictions, and ordered that no certificate of appealability issue. In the body of the order, the court stated that it dismissed the matter with prejudice; the numbered disposition separately states that the petition was “DISMISSED” without repeating that qualifier.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the petition as untimely without deciding whether Minnesota actually had jurisdiction over Mulvihill’s prosecution or conviction.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.