Bullock v. Schnell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JOSHUA WADE BULLOCK,
Petitioner,
v.
PAUL SCHNELL,
Respondent.
Case No. 25-CV-4195 (JWB/JFD)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This case is before the Court on Petitioner Joshua Wade Bullock’s Petition Under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Dkt. No. 1
(“Petition”)). For the following reasons, the Court recommends denying the Petition and
dismissing this case.
Mr. Bullock is a Minnesota resident who pleaded guilty to felony driving while in-
toxicated. On October 9, 2023, the state trial court sentenced Mr. Bullock to 24 months of
imprisonment and a 5-year term of conditional release. (See Dkt. No. 8 at 2 (citing state-
court record) (“November 2025 Order”).) In October 2025, Mr. Bullock filed the Petition,
which challenges only the conditional-release portion of his sentence (which he is now
serving). (See id.) Mr. Bullock asks the Court to vacate the conditional-release term, basi-
cally arguing that it was not part of the oral pronouncement of sentence. (See generally Pet.
5–13.)
On November 7, 2025, the Court entered an order noting two threshold procedural
defects with the Petition: (1) untimeliness under the one-year statute of limitations of 28
CASE 0:25-cv-04195-JWB-JFD Doc. 11 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 5

2
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); and (2) failure to exhaust state remedies, as required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(b). (See Nov. 2025 Order 2–4.) The Court therefore directed Mr. Bullock to explain
why the Petition should not be denied on those grounds. Mr. Bullock has since responded.
He maintains that his late discovery of the conditional-release term triggers a later limita-
tions period (specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D)) and that no state corrective process
was available once he learned of the issue. (See generally Dkt. No. 10 (“Response”).)
The Court will start with timeliness. As the November 2025 Order observed, Mr.
Bullock’s deadline to file the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) was January 7,
2025.1 Mr. Bullock does not challenge the Court’s calculation, nor does he suggest that
§ 2244(d)(1)(B)–(C) apply. He instead relies on § 2244(d)(1)(D), which starts the one-year
limitations period on “the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims pre-
sented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” Mr. Bullock
argues that his claims’ “factual predicate”—the inclusion of the 5-year conditional-release
term in his sentence—was unknown to him at sentencing and could not have been discov-
ered earlier through due diligence. (See Resp. 1.) He says that he had “no reason to believe
[he] was sentenced to anything other than what the Judge told [him] orally in court,” and
he claims he first learned of the conditional-release period on January 31, 2025. (Id.)
1 See Nov. 2025 Order 3 (“The § 2244(d)(1)(A) limitations period begins on ‘the date on
which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of
the time for seeking such review.’ Bullock was sentenced on October 9, 2023, and there is
no suggestion that he filed a direct appeal. . . . Under Minnesota criminal procedure, his
deadline to appeal his conviction and sentence was 90 days after entry of the sentencing
order, i.e., January 7, 2024. That made his deadline to file the Petition January 7, 2025. He
did not file it until October 2025.” (citation omitted)).
CASE 0:25-cv-04195-JWB-JFD Doc. 11 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 5

3
This situation does not fall within § 2244(d)(1)(D) because Mr. Bullock could have
discovered the conditional-release term with due diligence well before January 31, 2025.
The term is expressly set forth in the trial court’s sentencing order. (See Order and Warrant
of Commitment 2, State v. Bullock, No. 27-CR-22-21851 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Oct. 9, 2023)
(“Conditional release after confinement has been set at 5 years.”).) Nothing suggests that
Mr. Bullock lacked access to this document during the criminal proceedings. With reason-
able diligence, then, he would have discovered that his sentence included the conditional-
release term long before January 2025. The Court therefore concludes that § 2244(d)(1)(D)
does not set the relevant deadline. Section 2244(d)(1)(A) does, and the Petition is therefore
untimely. The Court therefore recommends denying the Petition and dismissing this action.
Even if the Petition were timely, the Court would recommend denying the Petition
because Mr. Bullock failed to exhaust state-court remedies. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1),
a federal court cannot grant habeas relief to a state prisoner unless the prisoner has first
“exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State,” unless no such remedies are
available, or they are ineffective to protect the prisoner’s rights. Here, the Petition conceded
that Mr. Bullock had not exhausted state-court remedies. (See Pet. 5, 7, 9–10.) The Re-
sponse argues that the Court should excuse Mr. Bullock’s failure to exhaust. Mr. Bullock
contends that by the time he learned of the conditional release (in late January 2025), “no
state remedies were available.” (Resp. 1.) The Court construes this as an attempt to invoke
one or both exhaustion exceptions in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B).
This case does not qualify for either exception. First, Mr. Bullock has not demon-
strated an actual “absence of available State corrective process.” He does not explain why
CASE 0:25-cv-04195-JWB-JFD Doc. 11 Filed 12/18/25 Page 3 of 5

4
he could not have filed (for instance) a postconviction-relief petition in state court. See,
e.g., Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a)(1) (permitting postconviction-review petitions within
two years after the entry of judgment when no direct appeal is taken). Second, nothing in
the Petition or Response suggests that available state processes would have been “ineffec-
tive to protect” Mr. Bullock’s rights. Mr. Bullock alleges no facts suggesting that Minne-
sota’s courts would have refused to consider his claim, or that a postconviction petition
would have been a meaningless exercise. As a result, even if the Petition were timely, the
Court would nevertheless recommend denying it based on Mr. Bullock’s failure to exhaust
state-court remedies.
Because the Court recommends denying the Petition, the Court also recommends
dismissing this action and denying as moot Mr. Bullock’s pending motion to proceed in
forma pauperis in this action (Dkt. No. 2) and his “Motion to Vacate Conditional Release
Period” (Dkt. No. 3).
One final issue remains: whether to issue a certificate of appealability (“COA”).
When a court dismisses a § 2254 petition on procedural grounds, a COA should issue only
if reasonable jurists could debate both (1) whether the petition states a valid constitutional
claim and (2) whether the procedural ruling is correct. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000). On this record, no reasonable jurist would dispute the correctness of the
Court’s procedural rulings. The Court therefore recommends that no COA issue.
CASE 0:25-cv-04195-JWB-JFD Doc. 11 Filed 12/18/25 Page 4 of 5

5
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons above, and based on all the files, records, and proceedings in this
case, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	Petitioner Joshua Wade Bullock’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for
Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Dkt. No. 1) be
DENIED.
2. 	Mr. Bullock’s pending motions at Dkt. Nos. 2–3 be DENIED as moot.
3. 	This action be DISMISSED.
4. 	No certificate of appealability be issued.
Dated: December 18, 2025
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of
the District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to
a magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those ob-
jections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. See Local Rule
72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set
forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
s/ John F. Docherty
JOHN F. DOCHERTY
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-04195-JWB-JFD Doc. 11 Filed 12/18/25 Page 5 of 5