United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Dennis D. Linehan, Petitioner,
Emily Johnson Piper, Respondent.
D. Linehan, Pro Se Petitioner.
Matthew Frank, Esq., Minnesota Attorney General's Office,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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.
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
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
Standard of Review
“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.
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 ...