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.

Mahbub v. Warden, Rush City Prison

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

May 17, 2018

MAKSUD UL MAHBUB, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, RUSH CITY PRISON; JOHN CHOI, Ramsey County Attorney; LORI SWANSON, Attorney General; STATE OF MINNESOTA, Respondents.

          Maksud Ul Mahbub, pro se petitioner.

          Edwin W. Stockmeyer, III, and Matthew Frank, Peter R. Marker, for respondents.

          ORDER

          JOHN R. TUNHEIM CHIEF JUDGE

         Petitioner Maksud Ul Mahbub (“Mahbub”), an inmate at the Minnesota Correctional Facility - Rush City, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended that Mahbub's petition be denied and the action dismissed. After an independent review of the files, records, and proceedings, the Court will conclude that Mahbub's petition is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and will dismiss the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

         BACKGROUND

         Mahbub was convicted in state court of one count of third-degree criminal sexual conduct and three counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. State v. Mahbub, No. A11-1284, 2013 WL 4779009, at *3 (Minn.Ct.App. Sept. 9, 2013), review denied (Minn. Nov. 26, 2013). Mahbub appealed the verdict on a number of grounds. Id. at *4-7. He also brought a postconviction petition, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to request a suppression motion. Id. at *7-9. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed both the conviction and denial of Mahbub's postconviction petition. Id. at *9. The Minnesota Supreme Court denied review on November 26, 2013.

         Following the denial of his postconviction petition in state court, Mahbub filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mahbub v. Warden, No. 14-4825, 2016 WL 75053, at *1 (D. Minn. Jan. 6, 2016). The petition was dismissed with prejudice because Mahbub had procedurally defaulted on the claims raised in that petition. Id. at *2-3.

         The present petition is Mahbub's second habeas petition (“the present petition”). (Pet., Oct. 30, 2017, Docket No. 1.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss the present petition because Mahbub has not received permission from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second habeas petition as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). (R&R at 2-3, Dec. 11, 2017, Docket No. 16.)

         DISCUSSION

         I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Upon 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 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). While Mahbub has not formally filed objections, the Court construes his pro se filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

         II. PROCEDURAL BAR

         State prisoners are prohibited from bringing a second or successive habeas petition, unless the claims presented in the petition fall within one of three narrow exceptions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). Even when such an exception applies, the petitioner must move the Eighth Circuit for an order authorizing the Court to consider the second or successive application. See Id. § 2244(b)(3).

         The present petition is Mahbub's second habeas petition. See Mahbub, 2016 WL 75053, at *1. Mahbub needed approval from the Eighth Circuit before filing this second petition. 28 U.S.C. ยง 2244(b)(2). The Eighth Circuit has not authorized the Court to review Mahbub's ...


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.