Braun v. MCF-Rush City Warden et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Nathan Christopher Braun,
Petitioner,
v.
MCF-Rush City Warden; MNDOC
Commissioner; MNDOC HRU; and
MNDOC ISR,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-CV-0520 (JMB/DLM)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Over eight years ago, Nathan Christopher Braun was convicted of third degree
criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.344 subd. 1(b) and sentenced to
a term of imprisonment of 91 months with a 10-year conditional release period to follow.
See Order, State of Minnesota v. Braun, Case No. 05-CR-16-1323 (Minn. Dist. Ct.) (Index
#60) (filed Sept. 6, 2017). His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. See State
v. Braun, Case No. A17-1889, 2018 WL 4201208 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2018), review
denied (Minn. Oct. 24, 2018). Mr. Braun then sought and was denied federal habeas relief
of his conviction. See Braun v. Schnell, Case No. 21-CV-2561 (PJS/ECW), 2022 WL
17543094, at *1 (D. Minn. Nov. 8, 2022), R&R adopted by 2022 WL 17543016 (D. Minn.
Dec. 8, 2022).
Mr. Braun is now back before the Court requesting federal habeas relief from his
current incarceration, which stems from the state initiating proceedings to revoke his
conditional release. Braun requests to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 2). This
CASE 0:26-cv-00520-JMB-DLM Doc. 3 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 7

2
matter is before the Court for preservice review pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court. Upon that review, and for the
reasons described below, this Court recommends that Mr. Braun’s petition be denied, that
his IFP application be denied as moot, and that this matter be dismissed without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Braun’s petition asserts essentially two categories of claims. First, he challenges
the fact of his incarceration, claiming that (1) there was no basis to issue an emergency
warrant for his arrest; (2) during his preliminary hearing on December 29, 2025, the hearing
officer violated his right to counsel by asking him questions related to the alleged
conditional release violations without his counsel present; (3) on December 30, 2025, he
was transferred to Minnesota Correctional Facility in Rush City (“MCF-Rush City”) even
though Minnesota law requires that a hearing be held within 50 miles of the alleged
violation; and (4) he is innocent of the underlying conviction.
Second, Braun challenges his conditions of confinement, claiming that (1) he was
placed in segregation for after informing prison officials that inmates in his assigned
housing unit at MCF-Rush City threatened him; (2) prison officials failed to secure his
property, which allowed other inmates to steal his legal documents; and (3) prison officials
have refused to allow him to shower or recreate alone even though they are aware of the
threats against him.
At bottom, each of Mr. Braun’s claims are either unexhausted or not cognizable as
habeas claims. Accordingly, the Court respectfully recommends that Mr. Braun’s petition
be dismissed without prejudice.
CASE 0:26-cv-00520-JMB-DLM Doc. 3 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 7

3
ANALYSIS
Mr. Braun does not explicitly assert the provision under which he brings his habeas
petition. (See Doc. 1.) That said, because his current incarceration is the result of
proceedings to revoke his conditional release—a term of his sentence that was imposed
pursuant to a state court judgment—the Court considers his petition as being brought under
28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Bergeron v. Schnell, Case No. 20-CV-0701 (SRN/BRT), 2020 WL
6550663, at *1 (D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2020) (applying § 2254 requirements to a habeas petition
challenging the revocation of the petitioner’s supervised release because “only through”
the state court judgment would the petitioner’s continued detention be permissible), R&R
adopted by 2020 WL 6550549 (D. Minn. Nov. 6, 2020). To obtain habeas relief under
section 2254, a petitioner must show that he is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a
State court in violation of the “Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States,” 28
U.S.C. § 2254(a). There are several problems with Braun’s habeas claims, but the Court
will focus on the two most salient.
First, habeas relief from a state-court judgment is subject to several procedural bars,
including an exhaustion requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). To satisfy this
requirement, the petitioner “must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any
constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate
review process before presenting those issues in an application for habeas relief in federal
court.” Welch v. Lund, 616 F.3d 756, 758 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing O’Sullivan v. Boerckel,
526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)).
CASE 0:26-cv-00520-JMB-DLM Doc. 3 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 7

4
In this case, Mr. Braun challenges his conditional release revocation proceedings.
Pursuant to Minnesota law, “[i]f an offender violates the conditions of his or her conditional
release, the Department may revoke the offender’s release and re-incarcerate the offender
‘for the appropriate period of time’ not to ‘exceed the period of time remaining on the
[offender’s] sentence.’” State ex rel. Young v. Schnell, 955 N.W.2d 652, 658 (Minn. 2021)
(quoting Minn. Stat. § 244.05 subd. 3(2) (2020)). “An offender whose conditional release
has been revoked may seek review of the revocation by petitioning the [state] district court
for a writ of habeas corpus.” Harju v. Fabian, Case No. A05-1820, 2006 WL 2255898, at
*1 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2006) (citing State v. Schwartz, 628 N.W.2d 131, 141 n.3
(Minn. 2001)); see also Bergeron, 2020 WL 6550663, at *3) (explaining that the § 2254
petitioner could seek relief “from any errors committed during the revocation proceedings
through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in state court”). A denial of a writ of
habeas corpus, moreover, may be directly appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
See id. (citing Minn. Stat. § 589.30 (2004)).
Mr. Braun asserts no facts suggesting that he even initiated let alone exhausted his
state court remedies before pursuing this action. Indeed, it is unclear whether the hearing
on the request to revoke his conditional release has even taken place yet—the petition
discusses the “requested” sanction, but Mr. Braun does not specify whether the hearing
took place or the results of that hearing. Further, even if Mr. Braun established that he
completed one full round of appellate review with respect to the revocation of conditional
release (which he does not and cannot), the exhaustion requirement also requires him to
show that he fairly presented to the Minnesota Supreme Court each of the claims for relief
CASE 0:26-cv-00520-JMB-DLM Doc. 3 Filed 01/28/26 Page 4 of 7

5
that he seeks to raise in his federal habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). “A
claim has not been fairly presented to the state courts unless the same factual grounds and
legal theories asserted in the [] federal habeas petition have been properly raised in [his]
state court proceedings.” Forest v. Delo, 52 F.3d 716, 719 (8th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, in
addition to failing to show that he exhausted his state court remedies, Mr. Braun has also
failed to show that he “fairly presented” his federal habeas claims in those state court
proceedings. Mr. Braun’s claims challenging the fact of his current detention, therefore,
should be dismissed as unexhausted.
Second, Mr. Braun’s claims asserting that he was wrongly placed in segregation,
that jail officials allowed inmates to steal his legal documents, and that prison officials have
refused his requests to shower and to participate in recreation alone all concern his
conditions of confinement, not the fact or duration of his confinement. It is well established
that “if the prisoner is not challenging the validity of his conviction or the length of his
detention, such as loss of good time, then a writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy.”
Spencer v. Haynes, 774 F.3d 467, 469 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Kruger v. Erickson, 77 F.3d
1071, 1073 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). With respect to these claims, therefore, a habeas
petition is not the proper claim to remedy his alleged injuries.
While it is sometimes appropriate to recharacterize a pro se habeas petition as a 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action where appropriate, id. at 471, it is not appropriate to do so here
because Mr. Braun has not asserted a plausible constitutional violation. He asserts no facts
about his confinement in segregation that would give rise to a reasonable inference that
those conditions “impose[] atypical and significant hardship[s] on [him] in relation to the
CASE 0:26-cv-00520-JMB-DLM Doc. 3 Filed 01/28/26 Page 5 of 7

6
ordinary incidents of prison life,” thereby triggering Fourteenth Amendment due process
protections. Smith v. McKinney, 954 F.3d 1075, 1080 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)). Nor does Brau assert facts suggesting that the loss of
his legal documents caused him injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-52 (1996).
Finally, to the extent that Mr. Braun seeks relief from the deprivation of his property,
Minnesota law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy, thereby foreclosing any
relief under § 1983. See Jones v. Roy, 449 F. App’x 526, 527 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Hudson
v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984)). Accordingly, Mr. Braun’s claims—to the extent they
could be construed as conditions of confinement claims brought under § 1983—should not
be recharacterized as such.
One final matter requires some discussion: “Unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from . . . the
final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out
of process issued by a State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of
appealability (“COA”) cannot be granted unless the petitioner “has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Because this Court
does not believe the basis upon which dismissal is recommended to be fairly debatable, it
is further recommended that a certificate of appealability not be issued in this matter. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000).
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT
IS RECOMMENDED THAT:
CASE 0:26-cv-00520-JMB-DLM Doc. 3 Filed 01/28/26 Page 6 of 7

7
1. Nathan Christohper Braun’s petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, (Doc. 1), be DENIED;
2. Braun’s IFP Application, (Doc. 2), be DENIED as MOOT.
3. No certificate of appealability be issued; and
3. This matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated: January 28, 2026 _s/Douglas L. Micko_____________
DOUGLAS L. MICKO
United States Magistrate Judge
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
objections 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).
CASE 0:26-cv-00520-JMB-DLM Doc. 3 Filed 01/28/26 Page 7 of 7