Henderson v. Bolin

Background

Michael Henderson, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to review his state custody. He argued, among other things, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that his custody violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Henderson’s state conviction became final after the Minnesota Supreme Court denied review on March 29, 2016, and the 90-day period for seeking review by the United States Supreme Court expired on June 27, 2016. Under federal law, Henderson generally had one year from that date—until June 27, 2017—to file his federal petition. He filed a state post-conviction petition on April 25, 2018, and filed his federal petition on July 6, 2020.

A magistrate judge recommended that the petition be denied because it was untimely, that the action be dismissed with prejudice, and that no certificate of appealability issue. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal an adverse ruling on a federal habeas petition. Henderson objected to the recommendation. He argued that his appellate counsel failed to tell him he could seek review by the United States Supreme Court, and he argued that his state post-conviction petition affected the federal filing deadline.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a federal petition under § 2254 generally must be filed within one year after the state judgment becomes final. Time is excluded while a properly filed state post-conviction application is pending, but that exclusion begins only after the state application is filed.

Because Henderson filed his state post-conviction petition on April 25, 2018—after the federal one-year period had already expired—there was no remaining federal filing period for that state petition to pause. The court therefore rejected Henderson’s objection concerning the deadline calculation.

The court also held that Henderson’s argument for equitable tolling—an extension of a filing deadline in extraordinary circumstances—was raised for the first time in his objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation and was therefore not properly preserved. The court nevertheless considered the argument alternatively and concluded that Henderson had not shown the required extraordinary circumstance or that he had pursued his rights diligently. In particular, he did not explain why he waited nearly four years after the Minnesota Supreme Court’s denial to raise the issue concerning his counsel’s advice.

The court further concluded that Henderson had not made the substantial showing of a constitutional-right violation required for a certificate of appealability. It found that reasonable judges would not debate the issues, that another court would not resolve them differently, and that further proceedings were not warranted.

Disposition

Judge John R. Tunheim overruled Henderson’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and dismissed Henderson’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus with prejudice. The court did not grant a certificate of appealability. The court also stated that Henderson’s pending motions concerning appointment of counsel, expanding the record, and compelling video evidence were moot because of the dismissal.