White Eagle v. Minnesota, State of

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 3 - Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus 1 is DENIED. Petitioner's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is DENIED. Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel 4 is DENIED. Petitioner's motion for sign language interpreter 6 is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability in this case. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on May 22, 2013. (CBC)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Larry White Eagle, Petitioner, v. Civil No. 13-921 (JNE/FLN) ORDER State of Minnesota, Respondent. In a Report and Recommendation dated April 29, 2013, the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and that a certificate of appealability should not issue. Petitioner did not object. Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. The Court denies the motions that were received after the Report and Recommendation had issued. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus [Docket No. 1] is DENIED. 2. Petitioner’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Docket No. 2] is DENIED. 3. Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel [Docket No. 4] is DENIED. 4. Petitioner’s motion for sign language interpreter [Docket No. 6] is DENIED. 5. This action is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 6. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability in this case. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated: May 22, 2013 s/Joan N. Ericksen JOAN N. ERICKSEN United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?