United States District Court, D. Minnesota
KEMEN L. TAYLOR, II, Ex Relatione In Propria Persona Kemen L. Taylor II, Petitioner,
GOVERNOR MARK DAYTON, Respondent. KEMEN LAVATOS TAYLOR, II, Petitioner,
TOM ROY, Commissioner of Corrections, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Brisbois United States Magistrate Judge.
matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge upon the routine supervision of the cases that pend
before the Court pursuant to a general assignment made in
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636.
November 14, 2016, petitioner Kemen L. Taylor acting pro se
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 challenging convictions for aiding and
abetting murder and attempted murder incurred in state court.
This habeas petition includes twelve grounds for relief.
Although there are a few minor errors within the habeas
petition,  these mistakes are easily correctable, and
under ordinary circumstances, this Court would now order
respondent to answer the habeas petition in a manner
consistent with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts.
week later, however, another habeas corpus petition was filed
under Taylor's name challenging the same convictions,
this time with assistance of counsel. The second habeas
petition includes fewer grounds for relief (six), each of
which was included in Taylor's original habeas petition.
Further, unlike in the first habeas petition, the factual
basis for the second set of grounds is not adequately set
forth in the habeas petition. See Rule 2(c)(2),
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
cannot and likely did not intend to proceed in two separate
habeas actions challenging the same convictions. It is
therefore recommended that these actions be consolidated. All
documents filed to date should be docketed in Case No.
16-CV-3893, while Case No. 16-CV-3965 should be
administratively terminated, without prejudice to
Taylor's right to seek habeas corpus relief. Because the
first habeas corpus petition that is, the petition filed in
Case No. 16- CV-3893 substantially complies with the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases, while the second habeas
petition does not, it is further recommended that the first
habeas petition be regarded as the operative petition in the
consolidated proceedings, absent direction from Taylor to the
contrary. Should this recommendation be adopted, this Court
will thereafter order respondent to answer the operative
petition in a manner consistent with Rule 5.
on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED
1. Cases Nos. 16-CV-3893 (DSD/LIB) and 16-CV-3965 (DSD/LIB)
2. That Case No. 16-CV-3965 be ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED,
without prejudice to Taylor's right to seek habeas corpus
3. That all documents filed to date in both cases be docketed
in Case No. 16-CV-3893.
4. That the habeas corpus petition filed in Case No.
16-CV-3893 be regarded as the operative petition in this
matter, absent direction from Taylor to the contrary.
Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or
judgment of the District Court and is therefore not
appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve
specific written objections to a magistrate judge's
proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after
being served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation.
A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after
being served a copy of the objections. LR 72.2(b)(2). ...