Bewaji v. Falgreen
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:25-cv-04342
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Bewaji v. Falgreen, Judge Blackwell denied Olabamidele Olumide Bewaji's petition asking a federal court to review his state criminal conviction, because Bewaji admitted he never raised his claim in state court first, as federal law requires before a federal court can step in.
Individuals who have been convicted in state court and are seeking federal court review of their convictions through a habeas corpus petition, particularly those who have not yet raised their constitutional claims in state court. Also relevant to anyone who has filed such a petition without an attorney.
What happened
In Bewaji v. Falgreen (Case No. 25-4342), Olabamidele Olumide Bewaji, representing himself, filed a federal petition asking the court to overturn or review his state criminal conviction. His sole claim was that a victim impact statement made by Jed Falgreen during the underlying state criminal case was prejudicial and should have been excluded — a claim the court treated as a due process (fundamental fairness) claim under the U.S. Constitution.
Before a federal court can review a state criminal conviction through this type of petition, federal law requires the person to have first raised the same claim in state court and gone through the available state court process — a requirement called 'exhaustion of state remedies.' Bewaji himself admitted in his filing that he never raised this due process claim in state court. A Magistrate Judge, David T. Schultz, reviewed the petition and recommended dismissing it for that reason. Bewaji objected, but instead of addressing the exhaustion problem, he simply repeated his original claims, tried to add new factual details, and raised a brand-new privacy rights argument — none of which addressed why the exhaustion requirement should not apply.
Judge Blackwell accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation in full. The court overruled Bewaji's objections, denied his petition, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability — a document that would have allowed Bewaji to appeal this decision to a higher federal court. His applications to proceed without paying court fees were also denied as moot, meaning the fee issue no longer mattered once the case was closed.
The detailed version
Case: Bewaji v. Falgreen, Civ. No. 25-4342 (JWB/DTS), U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. Presiding Judge: Jerry W. Blackwell, United States District Judge. Magistrate Judge: David T. Schultz.
Background
On January 7, 2026, Petitioner Olabamidele Olumide Bewaji, proceeding pro se (without an attorney), filed an Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A § 2254 petition is the statutory vehicle by which a person in state custody can ask a federal court to review whether their state conviction or sentence violates the U.S. Constitution or federal law. Bewaji's sole claim was that a victim impact statement made by Respondent Jed Falgreen in the underlying state criminal proceeding was prejudicial and should have been excluded. The Magistrate Judge construed this as a due process claim.
Report and Recommendation
On January 21, 2026, Magistrate Judge Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal of the Amended Petition on the ground that Bewaji had not exhausted his state court remedies. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), a federal habeas petitioner must exhaust available state court remedies before a federal court may grant relief — meaning the petitioner must have presented the same constitutional claim to the state courts and allowed those courts the opportunity to rule on it. Critically, Bewaji himself conceded in his filing that he had not raised his due process claim in state court.
Objections
Bewaji filed an objection to the R&R on February 6, 2026. However, the court found that Bewaji did not raise specific objections to the R&R's exhaustion analysis. Instead, he repeated his underlying claims, attempted to introduce new factual allegations regarding the due process claim, and raised a new constitutional claim related to privacy rights. The court noted that using an R&R objection to introduce new factual allegations is procedurally improper. Because no specific objection addressed the exhaustion analysis, that analysis was reviewed only for clear error — a more deferential standard than de novo (fresh, independent) review.
Standard of Review
Objected-to portions of an R&R are reviewed de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). Non-specific objections that merely repeat arguments already considered by the Magistrate Judge are reviewed only for clear error — meaning an obvious mistake in applying the law or interpreting the facts. Because Bewaji is pro se, his filings are entitled to liberal (generous) construction under Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Ruling: Judge Blackwell found no clear error in Magistrate Judge Schultz's analysis or conclusions. The court accepted the R&R in its entirety and issued the following orders:
- Bewaji's objections to the R&R were OVERRULED.
- The R&R was ACCEPTED.
- Bewaji's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 8) was DENIED.
- Bewaji's Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (to proceed without paying court fees) (Doc. Nos. 3, 10) were DENIED as moot, as the case was closed.
- No Certificate of Appealability was issued. A Certificate of Appealability is a prerequisite for appealing the denial of a § 2254 petition to the circuit court; without it, Bewaji cannot pursue an appeal in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals as of right.
Practical Effect
The petition was denied without prejudice to the extent the exhaustion defect is curable — though the opinion does not explicitly address whether Bewaji may refile after exhausting state remedies. The denial of a Certificate of Appealability forecloses a direct federal appellate path.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.