Glover v. State of Minnesota
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:24-cv-01125
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Glover v. State of Minnesota, Judge Foster recommended denying Glover’s federal challenge to his conviction for not first using available state remedies.
Andrew Glover’s federal challenge to his state conviction was recommended for denial and dismissal without prejudice because he did not show that he had first presented his argument to the Minnesota state courts.
What happened
Glover v. State of Minnesota concerns Andrew Glover’s federal petition challenging his Minnesota conviction on five counts, including first-degree murder. The court also considered his request to proceed without paying court fees and his letter asking the court to stop the federal case or send his documents to state courts.
The court said Glover had not shown that he presented his current argument to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Federal law generally requires a person challenging a state conviction in federal court to first present the relevant arguments in the state courts. Glover’s letter did not provide information showing that he had done so.
Judge Foster denied Glover’s request to send materials to other courts. She recommended denying the petition, denying the fee application as moot, dismissing the action without prejudice, and not issuing a certificate of appealability. The recommendation was not directly appealable, and the notice allowed written objections within 14 days after service.
The detailed version
- Glover v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:24-cv-01125
- Katherine Menendez
- June 14, 2024
Background
Andrew Glover filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a person in state custody to ask a federal court to review the legality of that custody. He challenged his conviction on five counts, including one count of first-degree murder. He also filed an application to proceed without prepaying court fees and costs.
The court had previously ordered Glover to explain why the action should not be dismissed because he appeared not to have exhausted his state-court remedies. Glover later submitted a letter asking whether the court could stop the process, direct him to the proper place, or send his forms and documents to the proper courts.
Analysis
The court construed Glover’s letter as requesting guidance and asking the federal court to send documents to a state court. It denied the request to forward the documents, explaining that judges are not required to act as lawyers or legal assistants for people representing themselves. The court directed Glover only to the general requirement that, before successfully bringing a federal petition under section 2254, he must first present his arguments in Minnesota state courts.
The court compared Glover’s argument in the federal petition with the grounds discussed in the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision affirming his conviction. Nothing in the record showed that Glover had presented his current argument to that court, and his letter did not show otherwise. Because Glover had not met his burden to show exhaustion of state remedies, the court recommended denying the petition without reaching the underlying challenge to his conviction.
Disposition
Judge Dulce J. Foster ordered that Glover’s request to send materials to other courts be denied. She recommended that the petition be denied, the application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs be denied as moot, the action be dismissed without prejudice, and no certificate of appealability be issued. A certificate of appealability is required for a federal habeas petitioner to appeal in the circumstances described in the opinion.
The filing is an order and report and recommendation, not a final district court judgment. The notice states that it was not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with it.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.