Sameru v. Stenseth
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:23-cv-02645
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Sameru v. Stenseth, Judge Tostrud denied Sameru’s habeas petition with prejudice, granted Stenseth’s motion to dismiss, and overruled his objections.
Teshome Sok Sameru’s federal habeas petition was denied with prejudice. Lisa Stenseth’s motion to dismiss was granted.
What happened
In Sameru v. Stenseth, Teshome Sok Sameru filed a petition challenging a state-court decision under the federal habeas statute. He represented himself, and Lisa Stenseth, the warden, responded with a motion to dismiss.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition, concluding that the state courts rejected Sameru’s confrontation-clause challenge consistently with Supreme Court precedent. Sameru objected, including arguing that Stenseth should have filed a response instead of a motion to dismiss.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud overruled the objections, accepted the recommendation in full, denied the habeas petition with prejudice, and granted Stenseth’s motion to dismiss. The court also stated that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue.
The detailed version
- Sameru v. Stenseth · No. 0:23-cv-02645
- Eric Tostrud
- Dec. 21, 2023
Background
Teshome Sok Sameru filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and proceeded without a lawyer. Lisa Stenseth, the warden, filed a motion to dismiss.
The matter came before the court after Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation. She recommended dismissing Sameru’s petition, concluding that the state trial court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected Sameru’s confrontation-clause challenge consistently with Supreme Court precedent. Sameru objected to that recommendation. He also argued that Stenseth should have filed a response or reply rather than a motion to dismiss.
Court’s Analysis
Because Sameru objected, the court reviewed the recommendation independently under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b)(3). The court concluded that Magistrate Judge Wright’s analysis and conclusions were correct.
The court also rejected Sameru’s procedural argument about the filing. It explained that the habeas rules specifically allow a respondent to file a motion to dismiss instead of a more complete answer to a habeas petition.
Disposition
Judge Eric C. Tostrud ordered that Sameru’s objections be overruled and that the Report and Recommendation be accepted in full. The court denied Sameru’s § 2254 petition with prejudice, granted Stenseth’s motion to dismiss, and stated that no certificate of appealability would issue. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.