Udoh v. State of Minnesota
- John Tunheim
- 0:21-cv-01588
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Udoh v. State of Minnesota, Judge Tunheim dismissed the successive habeas petition without prejudice because Udoh lacked required appellate authorization.
Emem Ufot Udoh’s successive federal habeas petition and related motions were dismissed or denied as moot; the State of Minnesota remained the respondent.
What happened
In Emem Ufot Udoh v. State of Minnesota, Emem Ufot Udoh filed another petition challenging his imprisonment after a state criminal-sexual-conduct conviction. He represented himself.
The court said Udoh needed authorization from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit before filing this successive petition. Because he did not have that authorization, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition’s merits and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court also denied as moot his application to proceed without paying the filing fee and his motions to accept the petition and to reopen a state appeal.
Judge John R. Tunheim overruled Udoh’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
The detailed version
- Udoh v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:21-cv-01588
- John Tunheim
- Nov. 8, 2021
Background
Emem Ufot Udoh, proceeding without a lawyer, was convicted in state court of one count of criminal sexual conduct and sentenced to twelve years in prison. The opinion states that an earlier petition for a writ of habeas corpus—a request for a federal court to review the legality of a person’s custody—was denied on the merits. A later petition was denied because Udoh had not obtained authorization from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Udoh then filed this additional petition.
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty recommended dismissing the petition without prejudice. Udoh objected, but the district court found that he did not identify specific objections and instead resubmitted his original petition and previously presented arguments.
Court’s Analysis
When a party makes specific objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court generally reviews those portions independently. The court explained that objections that merely repeat earlier arguments are reviewed for clear error, meaning the court checks whether the recommendation contains an obvious mistake.
The court found no clear error. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), Udoh could not file this successive habeas petition without authorization from the Eighth Circuit. Because he lacked that authorization, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition’s merits. The court therefore did not decide whether Udoh’s underlying habeas claims were legally valid.
Rulings
The court overruled Udoh’s objection and adopted the report and recommendation. It ordered that:
- The action was DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. - Udoh’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee was DENIED AS MOOT. - His motion to accept the petition was DENIED AS MOOT. - His motion for injunctive relief seeking to reopen a state appeal was DENIED AS MOOT. The court explained that it also lacked jurisdiction to grant that relief without Eighth Circuit authorization. - No certificate of appealability was issued.
Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the opinion states that Udoh may petition for habeas relief in the future if he obtains authorization from the Eighth Circuit.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.