Roulo v. Schnell
Sean William Roulo v. Paul Schnell, MN Commissioner of Corrections, and Keith Ellison, The Attorney General of the State of Minnesota
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:24-cv-04459
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Roulo v. Schnell, Judge Tostrud dismissed Sean Roulo's petition for court review of his state conviction because he failed to first exhaust his state court remedies.
State prisoners in Minnesota (and elsewhere in the Eighth Circuit) who wish to challenge their convictions in federal court must first fully exhaust all available state court remedies before filing a federal habeas petition. This order illustrates that incomplete or procedurally improper state-court filings will not satisfy that exhaustion requirement, and that COVID-related or logistical hardships may not excuse the failure to exhaust if the prisoner was given substantial time and extensions.
What happened
In Roulo v. Schnell, Sean William Roulo, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a federal court petition seeking relief from his conviction by claiming violations of his federal constitutional rights. The case came before the court after Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting the petition be dismissed because Roulo had not first brought his federal constitutional claims through the available Minnesota state court process — a required step before a state prisoner can seek federal relief.
Roulo objected to the recommendation, pointing to a supplemental brief he had tried to file during his Minnesota Court of Appeals case and arguing that a COVID-19 lockdown and forced prison labor prevented him from completing the state appeals process in time. The court found those arguments unpersuasive: the supplemental brief was never properly before the state appeals court, and the record showed Roulo had been given five months and numerous deadline extensions to file a completed brief but still did not do so.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud overruled Roulo's objections, accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation in full, denied the petition, and dismissed the case without prejudice — meaning Roulo is not permanently barred from refiling if he properly exhausts state remedies first. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability, which is the permission a petitioner needs to appeal a denial of this type of federal petition.
The detailed version
- Roulo v. Schnell · No. 0:24-cv-04459
- Eric Tostrud
- June 5, 2026
Background
Sean William Roulo, proceeding without a lawyer (pro se), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal mechanism by which a state prisoner asks a federal court to review whether his imprisonment violates federal constitutional rights. Roulo's petition named Paul Schnell, the Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections, and Keith Ellison, the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, as respondents.
The Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) concluding that the petition should be dismissed without prejudice because Roulo had not exhausted his available state court remedies. Federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), requires a state prisoner to exhaust all available state remedies before seeking federal habeas relief. This means the prisoner must "fairly present" both the facts and the substance of the federal constitutional claim to the state courts, giving them a first opportunity to correct any federal constitutional violations.
Roulo's Objections
Roulo filed objections to the R&R, triggering de novo (fresh, independent) review by District Judge Tostrud. Roulo raised two main arguments:
1. The supplemental pro se brief: Roulo argued that a supplemental brief he sought leave to file during his appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals constituted fair presentation of his federal claims to the state court. The court rejected this argument. The Minnesota Court of Appeals addressed only the two issues raised in the brief filed by his assistant state public defender; the pro se supplemental brief was never properly before that court. The opinion cites State v. Roulo, No. A21-1223, 2023 WL 126425 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2023), and a September 1, 2022 order describing the history of Roulo's incomplete filings and the ultimate denial of further extensions.
2. COVID-19 lockdown and prison labor: Roulo argued that a "Code Red COVID-19 lockdown at MCF Faribault" and a "forced prison labor requirement" during critical weeks of the direct appeal briefing period excused his failure to exhaust state remedies. Judge Tostrud rejected this, noting that Roulo had been granted numerous extensions over five months to file a completed pro se supplemental brief and failed to do so. The court applied the Eighth Circuit standard from Chitwood v. Dowd, 889 F.2d 781, 785 (8th Cir. 1989), which excuses exhaustion only where a petitioner made a continual good-faith effort and faced roadblocks at every turn — a standard the court found Roulo did not meet.
Certificate of Appealability
A certificate of appealability (COA) is a required permission slip allowing a habeas petitioner to appeal a denial to a higher court. To obtain one, the petitioner must make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," meaning reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Judge Tostrud concluded that the finding of non-exhaustion was not debatable, and therefore declined to issue a COA.
Administrative Stay Request
To the extent Roulo's objections also challenged the denial of a request for an administrative stay, the court declined to revisit that issue, noting it had been addressed in three prior orders.
Disposition
Judge Tostrud:
- Overruled Roulo's objections to the R&R;
- Accepted the R&R in full;
- Denied the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus;
- Dismissed the action without prejudice — meaning Roulo is not permanently barred from bringing a new federal petition if he first properly exhausts state court remedies; and
- Declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.