Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 9, 2022

Broussard v. United States of America

Judge
Susan Nelson
Docket
0:22-cv-00385
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasPro SePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In Broussard v. United States, Judge Nelson denied the habeas petition, temporary restraining order, fee-free filing request, and fee-free appeal status.

Who this affects

Aaron Rhy Broussard, the petitioner, whose habeas petition, temporary restraining-order motion, and requests to proceed without paying filing fees were denied; the respondents named in the case were the United States of America, Thomas M. Hollenhorst, Melinda W. Williams, Charles J. Novats, Jr., and the U.S. Department of Justice.

What happened

In Broussard v. United States of America, Aaron Rhy Broussard asked the federal court to review his detention or custody through a habeas petition. The court reviewed the petition under a screening rule and relied on the reasons given in an earlier round of this case, without repeating those reasons here.

The court denied Broussard’s habeas petition. It also denied his request for a temporary restraining order because he had not shown a likelihood of succeeding on his claims, and denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Judge Susan Richard Nelson also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, so Broussard would not receive fee-free status for an appeal. The court ordered judgment to be entered.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Broussard v. United States of America · No. 0:22-cv-00385
Judge
Susan Nelson
Date
Feb. 9, 2022

Background

Aaron Rhy Broussard filed a petition asking for a writ of habeas corpus. The court reviewed the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The opinion states that Broussard’s petition was not brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but that those rules could still be applied under Rule 1(b).

The court stated that the petition would be denied for the reasons provided in an earlier round of this case. The opinion does not restate those reasons. Broussard also filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee and a motion for a temporary restraining order.

Rulings

The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It denied Broussard’s motion for a temporary restraining order because there was no likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. It also denied his application to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court certified that any appeal from the dismissal would not be taken in good faith. As a result, Broussard would not be granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal. The court ordered judgment to be entered.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.