Kudla v. Roy
Filing
13
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation 9 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2. No certificate of appealability will issue. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on February 10, 2015. (CLG) cc: Kulda on 2/10/2015 (LPH).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JUSTIN ANTHONY KUDLA,
Case No. 14‐CV‐2071 (PJS/JSM)
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
TOM ROY, Department of Corrections
Commissioner,
Respondent.
Justin Anthony Kudla, pro se.
Kathleen A. Heaney, SHERBURNE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE;
Matthew Frank and James B. Early, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY
GENERAL’S OFFICE, for respondent.
Petitioner Justin Anthony Kudla was convicted by a jury in state court of two
counts of terroristic threats and two counts of domestic assault. State v. Kudla,
No. A12‐0619, 2013 WL 490720, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2013), rev. denied,
(Apr. 16, 2013). After appealing his conviction in the state courts, Kudla filed this
petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming that his federal
constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process were violated, first, by the admission
of unfairly prejudicial evidence at trial, and second, by the trial judge’s erroneous
instructions to the jury.
This matter is before the Court on Kudla’s objection to the October 29, 2014
Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron.
Judge Mayeron recommends that Kudla’s petition be dismissed without prejudice
because his claims have not been exhausted in the state courts. The Court has
conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Based on
that review, the Court agrees with Judge Mayeron’s analysis and adopts her R&R.
Before a federal court can entertain a state prisoner’s § 2254 petition, the state
prisoner must exhaust all available state‐court remedies by “fairly presenting” his
federal claims to the highest available state court. See Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29
(2004). A review of Kudla’s petition to the Minnesota Supreme Court makes clear that
Kudla did not fairly present that court with the federal nature of his claims. His
petition focused solely on state law—not once invoking federal rights, federal cases, or
any provision of the United States Constitution. Although Kudla’s brief to the
Minnesota Court of Appeals did contain references to federal rights with respect to one
of his claims, this does not satisfy the requirement that he “fairly present his claim in
each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court with powers of
discretionary review) . . . .” Id. (emphasis added). Therefore, Kudla has not exhausted
his state‐court remedies, and his § 2254 petition must be dismissed.
‐2‐
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
the Court OVERRULES petitioner’s objection [ECF No. 10] and ADOPTS the
October 29, 2014 R&R [ECF No. 9]. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.
Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
2.
No certificate of appealability will issue.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 10, 2015
s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge
‐3‐
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?