Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota accepted a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation and denied Olabamidele Olumide Bewaji's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court concluded that Bewaji had not exhausted his state court remedies, overruled his objections, denied his in forma pauperis applications as moot, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the magistrate judge's recommendation should be accepted when the petitioner's objections were nonspecific and did not address the exhaustion analysis.
- Whether the amended § 2254 petition should be denied because the petitioner failed to exhaust available state remedies.
- Whether the petitioner could use objections to the report and recommendation to add new factual allegations and a new constitutional privacy claim.
Holdings
- Objections that merely repeat underlying arguments and do not specifically challenge the report and recommendation are not entitled to de novo review; the challenged analysis is reviewed for clear error.
- Using objections to a report and recommendation to add factual allegations or a new constitutional claim is procedurally improper.
- A § 2254 habeas petition must be denied when the petitioner has not exhausted available state remedies for the claim presented.
Key quotations
“A writ of habeas corpus under § 2254 requires the petitioner to have exhausted available state remedies.”
Factual background
Bewaji was involved in an underlying state criminal case in which respondent Jed Falgreen made a victim-impact statement. Bewaji alleged in his amended federal habeas petition that the statement was prejudicial and should have been excluded. He conceded that he had not raised his due process claim in state court.
Procedural history
Bewaji filed an amended § 2254 petition alleging that a victim-impact statement in the underlying state criminal case was prejudicial and should have been excluded. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended dismissal because Bewaji had not exhausted his state remedies. Bewaji objected, but the district court found that he raised no specific objections, accepted the recommendation, denied the amended petition, denied in forma pauperis applications as moot, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.