Faul v. Lejeune
- Michael Davis
- 0:22-cv-02993
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Faul v. Lejeune and Faul v. King, Judge Davis adopted the recommendation, denied both custody-challenge petitions, and denied temporary restraining-order motions as moot.
Scott William Faul’s two petitions and requests for temporary restraining orders were denied. The respondents were Michel Lejeune and Mark W. King, identified as wardens.
What happened
In Faul v. Lejeune and Faul v. King, Scott William Faul filed two petitions seeking relief under the federal law governing custody challenges. He represented himself, and the respondents were identified as Michel Lejeune and Mark W. King, wardens.
The court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation dated March 25, 2024, along with Faul’s objections. Faul also requested an evidentiary hearing, but the court said the existing record showed that he was not entitled to relief.
Judge Michael J. Davis adopted the recommendation, denied both petitions, and denied Faul’s motions for temporary restraining orders as moot. The court ordered judgment to be entered accordingly.
The detailed version
- Faul v. Lejeune · No. 0:22-cv-02993
- Michael Davis
- June 4, 2024
Background
Scott William Faul filed two petitions for habeas corpus in separate civil matters. The respondents were Michel Lejeune, Warden, in Civil No. 22-02993, and Mark W. King, Warden, in Civil No. 23-01337. Faul proceeded without a lawyer. The respondents were represented by Assistant United States Attorneys.
Report and Recommendation and Objections
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation dated March 25, 2024. Faul objected to that recommendation. The district court stated that his objections fell largely into three categories: statements insulting the judiciary and the magistrate judge; challenges to the recommendation’s findings, analysis, and conclusions; and arguments concerning his request for an evidentiary hearing.
The district court conducted a de novo review, meaning it independently reviewed the record as required by statute and local rule. It found Faul’s objections without merit and denied the request for an evidentiary hearing because the record conclusively demonstrated that he was not entitled to relief.
Ruling
The court adopted Judge Docherty’s Report and Recommendation. It denied Faul’s habeas petitions in both civil matters. It also denied his motions for temporary restraining orders as moot. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
The opinion does not explain the underlying issues addressed in the two petitions; those details appear to be contained in the adopted Report and Recommendation, which is not reproduced here.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.