Munt v. Pugh
- John Tunheim
- 0:23-cv-01268
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Munt v. Pugh, Judge Tunheim dismissed Munt’s sentence challenge for lack of jurisdiction as a second or successive petition and denied his other requests.
The ruling affects Joel Marvin Munt’s second petition seeking relief from his conviction and life sentence, along with his related requests for fee relief, more time, and expanded filing limits.
What happened
In Munt v. Pugh, Joel Marvin Munt asked the court for relief from his life sentence for murder, kidnapping, and other charges. He had already sought relief from the same conviction and sentence, and that earlier petition was denied on the merits and affirmed on appeal.
The court said Munt’s new petition was a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because he had not shown that the Eighth Circuit authorized him to file it, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. The court therefore did not decide whether his underlying claims had merit.
Judge Tunheim overruled Munt’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and dismissed the § 2255 petition. The court denied Munt’s requests for more time, permission to exceed word limits, and permission to proceed without prepaying fees; it also did not grant a certificate allowing an appeal.
The detailed version
- Munt v. Pugh · No. 0:23-cv-01268
- John Tunheim
- Aug. 2, 2023
Background
Joel Marvin Munt is serving a life sentence for the shooting death of his former wife and the kidnapping of his three children, among other charges. He previously sought relief from the same conviction and sentence. The District of Minnesota denied that earlier petition on the merits, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Munt filed another petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence in specified circumstances. He also asked to proceed without prepaying fees, for more time to file a reply, and for permission to exceed the word limits in the District of Minnesota’s local rules.
Analysis
The magistrate judge recommended dismissing Munt’s petition for lack of jurisdiction because it was a second or successive petition that lacked authorization from the Eighth Circuit. Munt objected, apparently arguing that the petition should not be treated as second or successive.
The court explained that a second or successive § 2255 petition must be authorized by the appropriate court of appeals. Munt had already filed a petition based on the same conviction and sentence, and he provided no evidence that the Eighth Circuit had authorized the new petition. The court therefore concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the petition on that basis.
The court expressly stated that it was not considering the merits of Munt’s new petition. It also concluded that Munt’s other requests were moot because the petition was being dismissed.
Order and disposition
Judge John R. Tunheim overruled Munt’s objection and adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The court dismissed Munt’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. It denied Munt’s request for an extension to file a reply, denied his requests for permission to exceed the word limits, and denied his application to proceed without prepaying fees. The court also did not grant a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.