Ramey v. Warden, MCF Rush City
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:25-cv-01722
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Ramey v. Warden, MCF Rush City, Judge Blackwell denied Scott Wade Ramey's petition asking a federal court to review his state criminal conviction because Ramey filed it four months too late under the one-year deadline set by federal law.
State prisoners considering filing a federal habeas corpus petition challenging their state convictions, particularly those who may be at risk of missing the strict one-year filing deadline under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
What happened
In Ramey v. Warden, MCF Rush City, Scott Wade Ramey, a prisoner at Minnesota Correctional Facility Rush City, filed a petition asking a federal court to review his state criminal conviction under a federal law that allows state prisoners to challenge their imprisonment (28 U.S.C. § 2254). A magistrate judge reviewed the petition and recommended it be dismissed because Ramey missed the strict one-year filing deadline. Even after giving Ramey credit for the time his direct appeal and post-conviction relief proceedings were pending in state court, he still filed his federal petition four months after the deadline expired.
Ramey objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation, but his objection did not address the missed deadline at all. Instead, he submitted a copy of a Minnesota criminal statute with handwritten notes and the prosecution's appellate brief from his original criminal case, repeating his earlier arguments that the victim lied and that his prosecution contained inconsistencies. He also submitted medical records, but the court explained that complaints about the conditions of a prisoner's confinement cannot be addressed through this type of proceeding.
Judge Blackwell accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation in full, overruled Ramey's objection, and denied the petition as untimely. The court also denied Ramey's request to proceed without paying court fees and dismissed the case entirely. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, which is a document that would have allowed Ramey to appeal this ruling to a higher court.
The detailed version
This case involves a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Scott Wade Ramey, a state prisoner proceeding without an attorney (pro se), against the Warden of Minnesota Correctional Facility Rush City. Ramey filed his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal statute that allows state prisoners to seek federal court review of their convictions on constitutional or federal law grounds.
United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on May 1, 2025, recommending denial of the petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), which imposes a one-year statute of limitations on § 2254 petitions. The limitations clock is tolled (paused) while properly filed state court post-conviction proceedings are pending. After accounting for tolling during Ramey's direct appeal and state post-conviction proceedings, the magistrate judge calculated that Ramey filed his federal petition four months after the one-year period had expired.
Ramey was granted an extension and filed an objection on June 23, 2025. His objection consisted of an annotated copy of Minn. Stat. § 609.342 and the State's appellate brief from his direct criminal appeal — materials that restated his substantive arguments about the victim's credibility and alleged prosecutorial inconsistencies. Critically, Ramey's objection did not identify any legal or factual error in the R&R and did not address the untimeliness finding at all. Ramey also separately filed medical records; the court noted that to the extent these were meant to challenge conditions of confinement, such claims are not cognizable (legally permissible) in a habeas proceeding. See Spencer v. Haynes, 774 F.3d 467, 469–70 (8th Cir. 2014).
District Judge Jerry W. Blackwell reviewed the objected-to portions of the R&R de novo and the remaining portions for clear error, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b)(3). The court applied liberal construction to Ramey's filings given his pro se status, per Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Finding no clear error in the unobjected-to portions and accepting the magistrate judge's analysis in full, Judge Blackwell: (1) overruled Ramey's objection; (2) accepted the R&R; (3) denied the § 2254 petition as untimely; (4) denied Ramey's application to proceed without paying court fees (in forma pauperis); (5) dismissed the case; and (6) declined to issue a certificate of appealability, meaning Ramey would need to obtain permission from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals separately before he could appeal this ruling.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.