United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Wilfred Carl Hudson, pro se petitioner.
H. Conroy, Assistant Clay County Attorney, for defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. TUNHEIM CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Wilfred Carl Hudson, presently incarcerated at the Stillwater
Correctional Facility, filed this Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 against Warden
Steve Hammer. Hammer filed a motion to dismiss, and the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) that Hudson's Petition be
dismissed because his claims are procedurally barred. When
Hudson failed to file objections within 14 days, the Court
issued an Order adopting the R&R and dismissing the
Petition. The Court subsequently stayed that Order to allow
Hudson to file two motions, one for leave to appeal and one
for a certificate of appealability. The Court will construe
them as objections to the R&R, overrule the objections,
deny the motions, and reaffirm its previous Order.
2013, Hudson was convicted on three counts of first degree
criminal sexual conduct for crimes against his daughter.
(Pet. at 1-2, Sept. 8, 2016, Docket No. 1.) He was sentenced
to concurrent sentences of 360 months, 201 months, and 172
months. State v. Hudson, No. A13-1338, 2015 WL
4393325, at *1 (Minn.Ct.App. July 20, 2015), review
denied (Oct. 20, 2015). On state post-conviction appeal,
Hudson argued (as relevant here) that a detective
impermissibly vouched for the credibility of the victim, and
that testimony from a new witness was newly discovered
evidence entitling him to a new trial. Id. at *4-5,
7. The Court of Appeals found that “the record
reasonably supports the district court's credibility
findings” and affirmed his sentence. Id. at
*5, 7-8. The Minnesota Supreme Court denied review.
then filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person
in State Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Pet.) Hudson
asserts four grounds for relief in the Petition: first, that
he was denied due process when the detective impermissibly
vouched for the victim's credibility; second, that he was
denied due process when the trial court refused him a new
trial; third, that he was denied due process when the trial
court impermissibly vouched for the victim's credibility;
and fourth, that he was denied effective assistance of trial
counsel. (Id. at 5-11.)
filed a motion to dismiss Hudson's petition, arguing that
Hudson was procedurally barred from raising the third and
fourth arguments and that the first and second should be
denied on the merits. (Mot. to Dismiss, Dec. 6, 2016, Docket
No. 11.) Hudson filed a motion to grant his petition. (Mot.
to Grant, Mar. 20, 2017, Docket No. 21.) The Magistrate Judge
issued an R&R recommending that the Petition be dismissed
because all four grounds are procedurally barred and that a
certificate of appealability not issue. (R&R, July 25,
2017, Docket No. 27.) Because Hudson did not file objections
within 14 days, the Court issued an Order adopting the
R&R. (Order, Aug. 11, 2017, Docket No. 28.) The Court
subsequently granted Hudson's motion for a time extension
and stayed its Order due to a prison lockdown. (Order, Sept.
18, 2017, Docket No. 35.)
has now filed Motions for Leave to Appeal and for a
Certificate of Appealability. (Mot. Leave to Appeal
(“Mot.”), Aug. 15, 2017, Docket No. 32; Mot.
Certificate of Appealability (“2d Mot.”), Sept.
27, 2017, Docket No. 36.) In both, Hudson argues that
evidence he received after his trial, direct appeal, and
state post-conviction proceedings proves his innocence. (Mot.
at 2-3; 2d Mot. at 2-3.) Specifically, Hudson received the
victim's medical records on February 14, 2014, address
verification forms on June 5, 2016, and supplemental police
reports on January 31, 2017. (2d Mot. at 2-3.)
Notably, Hudson does not allege that any evidence was
received after March 20, 2017, when he filed the motion to
grant his § 2254 petition. (See id.; Mot. to
STANDARD OF REVIEW
the filing of a report and recommendation by a magistrate
judge, “a party may serve and file specific written
objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2);
accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). “The objections
should specify the portions of the magistrate judge's
report and recommendation to which objections are made and
provide a basis for those objections.” Mayer v.
Walvatne, No. 07-1958, 2008 WL 4527774, at *2 (D. Minn.
Sept. 28, 2008). “The district judge must determine de
novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that
has been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3);
accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). “Objections
which are not specific but merely summarize or repeat
arguments presented to and considered by a magistrate judge
are not entitled to de novo review, but rather are reviewed
for clear error.” Montgomery v. Compass Airlines,
LLC, 98 F.Supp.3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015).
one exception, Hudson's filings do not contain specific
objections meriting de novo review. Hudson's briefing in
support of his motions merely reiterates the arguments he
made in his submissions to the Magistrate Judge.
(See Mem. Supp. Mot. Leave to Appeal
(“Mem.”), Aug. 15, 2017, Docket No. 33.) Because
these objections merely repeat prior arguments, they are not
proper, and so the R&R is reviewed for clear error with
regard to them. Hudson's pro se motions themselves,
construed liberally, ...