Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled July 25, 2022

Henderson v. State of Minnesota

Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Docket
0:22-cv-00566
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Henderson v. State of Minnesota, Judge Wright denied Henderson’s habeas petition as untimely, dismissed the matter, and denied fee-free filing as moot.

Who this affects

The ruling directly affected Mike Cordale Henderson’s habeas petition and fee application; the respondents were the State of Minnesota and County of Hennepin.

What happened

In Henderson v. State of Minnesota, Mike Cordale Henderson challenged the recommendation to dismiss his petition seeking habeas relief as untimely. The magistrate judge also recommended denying Henderson’s application to proceed without paying filing fees.

Henderson objected, but he did not make specific objections to the recommendation. The district court reviewed the record for clear error and found none.

Judge Wright overruled the objections, adopted the recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed the matter. The court also denied the fee-free filing application as moot and did not grant a certificate allowing an appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Henderson v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:22-cv-00566
Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Date
July 25, 2022

Background

Mike Cordale Henderson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court procedure for challenging custody or detention. The magistrate judge’s April 21, 2022 report and recommendation advised dismissing the petition as untimely and denying Henderson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee. Henderson filed objections.

Review of the Recommendation

The district court explained that it reviews specific objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo, meaning independently and from the beginning. Henderson’s objections were entitled to a liberal reading because he was representing himself, but the court found that he did not raise specific objections. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Ruling

The court overruled Henderson’s objections and adopted the April 21, 2022 report and recommendation. It denied Henderson’s habeas petition and dismissed the matter. It also denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. The court did not grant a certificate of appealability, which is required for an appeal in some habeas proceedings.

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.