Opinion
Civil No. 01-2137 (JRT/RLE).
July 14, 2004
Stephen Danforth #147636, Bayport, MN, petitioner pro se.
Michael K. Walz, OFFICE OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY, Minneapolis, MN, and Thomas R Ragatz, OFFICE OF THE MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL, St. Paul, MN, for respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Stephen Danforth was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in Minnesota state court and is serving a 316-month sentence at the Minnesota State Correctional Facility in Stillwater, Minnesota. Following his trial, petitioner was initially sentenced to 216 months imprisonment. Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Minnesota Court of Appeals; the State cross-appealed, challenging the sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, but granted the State's appeal and remanded for resentencing. On remand, the Hennepin County District Court ("District Court") sentenced petitioner to 316 months. Petitioner appealed the new sentence; the appeal was denied. Petitioner's subsequent petition for post-conviction relief was denied by the District Court and the Court of Appeals. The District Court also granted the State's motion to bar petitioner, his mother, or any other agent of petitioner from having contact with the jurors from petitioner's trial. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner's appeal of that order. Petitioner then petitioned this Court for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his petition, petitioner asserts eleven separate grounds for relief. Petitioner also asserts fifty-one sub-issues.
United States Magistrate Judge Raymond L. Erickson issued a Report and Recommendation on February 17, 2004 recommending that the petition be denied in its entirety. This matter is currently before the Court on defendant's objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the petitioner's objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and D. Minn. LR 72.1(c)(2). For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and dismisses the case with prejudice.
The Magistrate Judge also recommended without discussion that petitioner's motion for correction of respondents' answer [Docket No. 53] be denied. This motion amounted to a request that petitioner be provided with certain transcripts and other documents. In light of the decision to deny petitioner's habeas petition and dismiss this matter with prejudice, the Court will also deny this motion as moot.
Also outstanding are petitioner's motion to declare file in custodia legis and for filing under seal of petitioner's discovery motion [Docket No. 56], petitioner's first motion for discovery [Docket No. 57], and petitioner's request for production of documents to respondents [Docket No. 58]. In light of the instant decision, the Court will also deny these motions as moot.
Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the Court deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus and dismiss the case with prejudice. More specifically, petitioner objects to "each and every assertion and/or finding of fact, and each and every legal proposition and/or conclusion contained" in the Report and Recommendation. (Pet. Appeal from Denial of Motion for Correction, Etc.) Petitioner offers five bases for his objections, essentially restating arguments raised by petitioner in support of his petition. Petitioner also presents a number of additional arguments. Specifically, petitioner objects that the Report and Recommendation prematurely recommends dismissal before discovery has taken place, improperly examines both procedural and substantive matters, inaccurately presents the underlying facts of the case, and erroneously applies the relevant legal principles.
The Court has reviewed the petitioner's voluminous submissions and his arguments and objections. The Court finds petitioner's objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be without merit. Further discovery will not improve petitioner's chances of success in this matter. Provided the appropriate standard of review is applied to each matter, there is no prohibition on reviewing both procedural and substantive matters at the same time. Additionally, the Court finds that, based on the record in this case, the Magistrate Judge's recitation of the facts is not inaccurate. Finally, the Court determines that none of petitioner's arguments concerning an allegedly improper application or interpretation of the law are colorable. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and dismisses the petition for writ of habeas corpus with prejudice.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, all the records, files, and proceedings herein, the Court OVERRULES petitioner's objection [Docket Nos. 60, 62] and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 55]. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:1. Petitioner's state petition for writ of habeas corpus [Docket No. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
2. Petitioner's motion for correction of respondent's answer, for filing of transcript or transcript excerpts, for further indispensable transcription, for related relief [Docket No. 53] is DENIED AS MOOT;
3. Petitioner's motion to declare file in custodia legis and for filing under seal of petitioner's discovery motion [Docket No. 56] is DENIED AS MOOT;
4. Petitioner's first motion for discovery [Docket No. 57] is DENIED AS MOOT;
5. Petitioner's request for production of documents to respondents [Docket No. 58] is DENIED AS MOOT.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.