Dixon v. Department of Corrections
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:23-cv-03312
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Dixon v. Department of Corrections, Judge Tostrud denied Nikita Dixon’s habeas petition as untimely and ordered that no appeal certificate be issued.
Nikita Dixon’s habeas petition was denied as untimely. The order named the Department of Corrections, Commissioner Paul Schnell, and Warden Tracy Beltz as respondents.
What happened
Dixon v. Department of Corrections concerned Nikita Dixon’s petition asking the court to review her custody through a legal procedure called habeas corpus. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz had issued a recommendation on November 16, 2023.
No party objected to that recommendation. The district court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, and found none.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the recommendation, denied Dixon’s petition as untimely, and ordered that no certificate of appealability be issued. The opinion does not explain the basis for finding the petition untimely.
The detailed version
- Dixon v. Department of Corrections · No. 0:23-cv-03312
- Eric Tostrud
- Dec. 15, 2023
Background
Nikita Dixon filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the Department of Corrections, Commissioner Paul Schnell, and Warden Tracy Beltz. Habeas corpus is a legal procedure for challenging custody. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation on November 16, 2023.
Review of the Recommendation
No party objected to the Report and Recommendation. Under the cited federal civil-procedure rule, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court found no clear error based on the case files, records, and proceedings.
Ruling
The court ordered that:
- The Report and Recommendation was accepted.
- Dixon’s habeas petition was denied as untimely.
- No certificate of appealability would be issued.
The court also directed that judgment be entered. The opinion does not state why the petition was considered untimely.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.