Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Linehan v. Piper

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

November 9, 2017

Dennis D. Linehan, Petitioner,
v.
Emily Johnson Piper, Respondent.

          Dennis D. Linehan, Pro Se Petitioner.

          Matthew Frank, Esq., Minnesota Attorney General's Office, for Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter is before the Court for consideration of Petitioner's Objection [Doc. No. 7] to Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer's October 17, 2017 Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 6] (“R&R”). The Magistrate Judge recommended that: (1) Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1] (“Petition”) be dismissed without prejudice; (2) Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 3] be denied; and (3) no certificate of appealability be granted. For the reasons set forth below, the Court overrules Petitioner's Objection and adopts the R&R in its entirety.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The R&R documents the relevant factual and procedural background of this case, and the Court incorporates it by reference. Briefly stated, Petitioner Dennis Linehan (“Petitioner”) is currently detained indefinitely by the State of Minnesota, pursuant to a 1995 judicial determination that he is a sexually dangerous person. See In re Linehan, 594 N.W.2d 867, 870 (Minn. 1999). In 2000, Petitioner sought habeas corpus relief in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The District Court denied relief, but issued a certificate of appealability with regard to one issue. See Linehan v. Milczark, 315 F.3d 920, 921 (8th Cir. 2003). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of § 2254 relief. Id.

         On September 21, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, challenging his detention as violating his due process rights, the protection against double jeopardy, and separation of powers. (See Petition, at 2.) Petitioner also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

         On October 17, 2017, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner's Petition be dismissed without prejudice. (R&R, at 4.) On November 2, 2017, Petitioner filed his Objection to the Magistrate Judge's R&R. (Objection to Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommendations (“Objection”).)

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of Review

         A party “may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations.” D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). The district court will review de novo those portions of the R&R to which an objection is made, and it “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3).

         B. Applicable Law

         “[A] district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgement of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Petitioner is being held pursuant to the judgment of a state court, so his habeas petition is governed by § 2254. See, e.g., Smallwood v. Jesson, No. 13-cv-63, 2013 WL 4781021, at ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.