United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Thomas King, Minnesota Correctional Facility-Stillwater, pro
William Stockmeyer, III, Minnesota Attorney General's
Office, Peter J. Orput, Hennepin County Attorney's
Office, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court for consideration of Petitioner
Calvin Thomas King's Objection [Doc. No. 13] to United
States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung's Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) dated March 16, 2018
[Doc. No. 12]. The magistrate judge recommended the dismissal
without prejudice of King's Second Amended 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Second
Amended Petition”) [Doc. No. 11]. In addition, he
recommended that King's Motion for an Order [Doc. No. 9]
be denied as moot, and recommended the denial of a
Certificate of Appealability.
to statute, this Court reviews de novo any portion
of the magistrate judge's R&R to which specific
objections are made, and “may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations” contained in that R&R. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);
D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). Based on that de novo
review, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court
overrules Petitioner's Objection and adopts the R&R
in its entirety.
currently incarcerated at the Minnesota Correctional Facility
- Stillwater. (See Habeas Pet. [Doc. No. 1] at 1.)
He received a forty-eight month sentence in Minnesota state
court on July 31, 2017 after pleading guilty to aggravated
robbery in the first degree. (Id.) He did not appeal
the judgment. (Id.)
initial Petition King filed, he asserted that “every
court beside[s] the United State[s] Supreme Court”
lacks jurisdiction, and that “the court's”
documentation of his race violated the Thirteenth Amendment.
(See id. at 5-7.) He subsequently filed a First
Amended Petition, raising claims related to the conditions of
his confinement. (See First Am. Pet. [Doc. No. 7].)
In light of a similar pleading that King filed in King v.
State, No. 17-cv-05264, it appears that he intended his
First Amended Petition to be a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim
against various state employees. Magistrate Judge Leung
ordered King to amend his First Amended Petition so that the
scope of litigation was limited to relief available through a
habeas petition. (See Feb. 14, 2018 Order [Doc. No.
10].) King's Second Amended Petition does so-it
challenges only the validity of his conviction.
R&R, however, Magistrate Judge Leung found that King
could not proceed because he had failed to exhaust his
available state court remedies. (See R&R at 4.)
Consequently, Magistrate Judge Leung recommended that
King's Second Amended Petition be dismissed without
filed a timely Objection to the R&R on May 24, 2017,
triggering this de novo review.
King Has Failed to Exhaust All Available State Court
sole basis of King's Objection to the R&R goes to the
merits of his claim. (Obj. at 1.) King asserts that the State
of Minnesota lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment. King
contends that, since Minnesota lacks the authority to
adjudicate the matter, Minnesota effectively has no ...