Riley v. Rish

Background

Adrian Dominic Riley, also known as amiri-abdul: rasheed el, was serving three consecutive life sentences at Minnesota Correctional Facility—Rush City after a state conviction on three counts of first-degree murder. He filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a request for federal relief from allegedly unlawful custody. Although Riley identified 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as the basis for his petition, the court explained that a state prisoner seeking this type of relief must proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Riley had previously filed a federal § 2254 petition. That petition was denied as untimely, and the court treated it as an adjudication on the merits for purposes of the federal habeas statutes. Riley also had filed three petitions for postconviction relief in Minnesota state court.

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing Riley’s current petition without prejudice as a “second or successive” petition barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). The recommendation also called for denial of Riley’s application to proceed without prepaying fees and costs and for denial of a certificate of appealability. Riley objected, arguing generally that cited statutes were not law and that previously unavailable facts undermined his conviction. The opinion states that he identified no specific previously undiscoverable facts.

Analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), a state prisoner generally must obtain authorization from the appropriate court of appeals before filing a second or successive federal habeas petition. The court determined that Riley’s current petition was second or successive because his earlier federal petition had been dismissed with prejudice as untimely. Riley had not obtained authorization from the Eighth Circuit.

The court therefore treated the issue as procedural and did not decide whether Riley’s underlying conviction was unconstitutional. It overruled Riley’s objection and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Because the petition was denied on a procedural ground, Riley would have needed to show that reasonable judges could debate whether the procedural ruling was correct. The court found that the ruling was not reasonably disputable.

Disposition

The court ordered that:

- Riley’s objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was overruled. - The report and recommendation was adopted. - Riley’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied. - A certificate of appealability was not granted. - Riley’s habeas petition was denied. - Riley’s action was dismissed without prejudice.