Ailemen v. Fischer

Filing 6

ORDER: 1. Adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 4 ; 2. Dismissing the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for lack of jurisdiction 1 ; and 3. Denying as Moot the Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis 2 . LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion). Signed by The Hon. Paul A. Magnuson on 03/20/2013. (LLM) cc: Pius Ailemen. Modified on 3/20/2013 (lmb).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Pius Aileman,

Civ. No. 13-178 (PAM/TNL)
Petitioner,

v.

ORDER

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung dated February 11, 2013. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge
Leung recommends the dismissal with prejudice of Petitioner Pius Aileman’s Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner filed timely objections to the R&R.
According to statute, the Court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the
Magistrate Judge’s opinion to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). Based on that de novo review, the Court adopts
the R&R.
The R&R determined that Petitioner’s claims were barred because they had previously
been raised both on direct appeal and in a petition for postconviction relief filed in the
District in which Petitioner was convicted. Petitioner’s objection to the R&R amounts to a
contention that a federal court should be able to correct injustices when other courts have
failed to do so. But, as the R&R noted, this Court is not empowered to “correct” anything
done by a co-equal court or by a Court of Appeals. Indeed, the Court’s jurisdiction over

habeas corpus actions is sharply limited. Indeed, as the R&R pointed out, the Court shall not
entertain a motion for habeas relief if the sentencing court has already denied the relief
requested. Although Petitioner attempts to characterize his claims here as different from
those he raised in his previous proceedings, in fact the instant claims are nearly identical to
his previous claims. Because he has not and cannot establish that a motion in the sentencing
court is “inadequate or ineffective” in this case, the Court is simply without jurisdiction to
review the claims he raises here.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The R&R (Docket No. 4) is ADOPTED;

2.

The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1) is summarily
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction; and

3.

The Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 2) is
DENIED as moot.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: March 20, 2013

s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge

2