Opinion
A21-1041
02-08-2022
Emem Ufot Udoh, Appellant, v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, et al., Respondents.
Chisago County District Court File No. 13-CV-20-792
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Larkin, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Renee L. Worke Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Em em Ufot Udoh was convicted and sentenced in 2014 for first-and second-degree criminal sexual conduct for sexually abusing his two stepdaughters. Since that time, Udoh has challenged his convictions in a direct appeal and two separate petitions for postconviction relief. On direct appeal, although this court reversed one conviction for second-degree criminal sexual conduct based on a violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.04, subd. 1 (2012), it affirmed the remaining two convictions and sentences. State v. Udoh, No. A14-2181, 2016 WL 687328, at *1, 4 (Minn.App. Feb. 22, 2016) (Udoh I), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 27, 2016).
2. Udoh's appeal from the denial of his first petition for postconviction relief was ultimately dismissed after his repeated failures to file a timely brief. State v. Udoh, No. A19-1129 (Minn.App. Mar. 23, 2020) (order op.) (Udoh II). And Udoh's appeal from the district court's denial of his second postconviction petition was affirmed in an order opinion on the ground that his claims were barred by State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976). Udoh v. State, No. A20-0633 (Minn.App. Feb. 1, 2021) (order op.) (Udoh III), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2021).
3. On December 14, 2020, Udoh filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in district court, asserting that the restrictions imposed by the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) on inmates' access to the prison's law-library facilities violates his constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts. Udoh requested his immediate release from custody or, alternatively, a transfer to a facility with a lower custody classification so that he can be afforded access to the law library, as well as any other declaratory or injunctive relief the district court may deem appropriate.
4. Also on December 14, 2020, Udoh filed an "amended" petition for a writ of habeas corpus and an accompanying memorandum. These documents appear to be edited copies of a petition and memorandum that had been filed in April of 2020 on behalf of three inmates at a different correctional facility in a completely unrelated matter. That petition sought release from custody and mandamus relief based upon the facility's failure to adequately safeguard its inmates from COVID-19. The only substantive change that Udoh appears to have made to the petition and memorandum was to include language regarding his right of access to the courts in his assertions of error.
Incidentally, this court affirmed the district court's denial of relief in that unrelated matter. Foster v. Minn. Dep't of Corr., No. A20-0976, 2021 WL 1346617, at *1 (Minn.App. Apr. 12, 2021).
5. The district court denied Udoh's petitions on August 9, 2021, and Udoh now appeals.
6. In his brief to this court, Udoh raises only claims related to the validity of his convictions and says nothing pertaining to the claims made in his habeas corpus petitions in district court. In fact, Udoh's brief is identical to the one he filed in Udoh III, the appeal from his second petition for postconviction relief in which this court concluded that all of his claims were Knaffla-barred. The claims presented in his brief relate to (1) newly-discovered evidence, (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel, (3) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, (4) a Brady violation, (5) the state's knowing use of false testimony, and (6) prosecutorial misconduct based upon the state's vouching for the credibility of the complainants.
7. In its response brief, the state argues that Udoh forfeited consideration of each of these claims due to his failure to raise them in the district court proceeding. We agree. "We consider issues that are not raised in the district court but are raised for the first time on appeal to be forfeited." State v. Balandin, 944 N.W.2d 204, 220 (Minn. 2020). Here, Udoh's habeas corpus petitions in district court did not mention of any of the claims raised in his brief to this court, and the district court did not reference or address the claims.
Accordingly, we conclude that Udoh has forfeited consideration of these issues and we decline to review them.
8. We also decline to review the issues presented in Udoh's petitions for habeas corpus in district court. "Ordinarily, issues not briefed are waived." State v. Edwards, 736 N.W.2d 334, 340 (Minn.App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 26, 2007). Here, the brief Udoh submitted in this appeal makes no mention of the bases for relief presented in his habeas corpus petitions and provides no argument in support of them. Udoh has therefore forfeited consideration of these issues and we elect not to address their merits.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The order of the district court dismissing Udoh's petitions for habeas corpus is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.