Brown v. Minnesota Dept. of Corrections et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Remona Lysa Brown,
Petitioner,
v.
Minnesota Dep’t of Corrections and Kathy
Halvorson, Warden,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-1101 (PAM/DJF)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Remona Lysa Brown’s Petition Under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (ECF No. 1) (“Petition”).
The Petition challenges the legality of multiple convictions she incurred in state court for aiding
and abetting theft by false representations. (Id. at 6-7.) The Court reviews the Petition pursuant
to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Based
on that review, the Court concludes the Petition is untimely and recommends this case be
dismissed.
I. 	The Petition is Time Barred
A. 	Legal Standard
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) establishes the statute of limitations for habeas petitions challenging
a state court judgment:
(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a
writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the
latest of—
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by
the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of
the time for seeking such review;
CASE 0:26-cv-01101-PAM-DJF Doc. 4 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 5

2
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an
application created by State action in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States is removed,
if the applicant was prevented from filing by such
State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted
was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the
right has been newly recognized by the Supreme
Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on
collateral review; or
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the
claim 	or 	claims 	presented 	could 	have 	been
discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-
conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent
judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period
of limitation under this subsection.
Much of Section 2244(d) is irrelevant to Ms. Brown’s Petition. The State has not impeded
her from seeking habeas relief; she is not seeking relief pursuant to a constitutional right that the
United States Supreme Court recently recognized; and Ms. Brown’s discovery of the factual
predicate for her claims, which mostly relate to alleged ineffective assistance counsel, was not
recent. Therefore, the one-year limitations period began to run 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
B. 	Analysis
The Minnesota Supreme Court denied review of Ms. Brown’s direct appeal from her
conviction and sentence on November 23, 2022. See State v. Brown, No. A21-1221 (Minn. Nov.
23, 2022) (order denying petition for review). 	Ms. Brown then had 90 days to seek a writ of
certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States. She did not file a petition for a writ of
CASE 0:26-cv-01101-PAM-DJF Doc. 4 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 5

3
certiorari, and therefore, the judgment in Ms. Brown’s criminal matter became final on the date
that deadline passed, or February 21, 2023. 	See Jihad v. Hvass, 267 F.3d 803, 804-05 (8th Cir.
2001) (noting that “the conclusion of direct review” includes “the ninety days a state court
defendant has to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari.”). Ms.
Brown did not place her Petition in the prison mail system until January 14, 2026 (see ECF No. 1
at 15)—well more than a year after February 21, 2023, when the one-year limitations period began
to run.
But the Court must also consider 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), which provides that any time
during which an application for “State post-conviction or other collateral review” was pending
shall not count towards the limitations period. A portion of the period between February 21, 2023
and January 14, 2026 must be excluded under this provision.
In June 2023, Ms. Brown filed a federal habeas petition in this District attacking the
convictions at issue here. 	See Brown v. Halvorson, No. 23-cv-1998 (PAM/ECW) (D. Minn.).1
Because Ms. Brown had failed to exhaust some of her claims in state court, however, the court
warned her that failure to exhaust would prevent that matter from going forward. Ms. Brown then
elected to voluntarily dismiss her federal habeas petition and pursue relief in state court. On
October 30, 2023, Ms. Brown filed a petition for postconviction relief in Minnesota state court,
see State v. Brown, No. 53-CR-17-852 (Minn. Dist. Ct.), thus pausing the statutory limitations
clock. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). By then, 251 days of the 1-year imitations period had already
elapsed—February 21, 2023 to October 30, 2023. 	This left Ms. Brown with 114 days on the
limitations clock. In other words, she had 114 days to return to federal court after her petition for
1 Though the period when a petition for collateral review in state court is pending does not
count towards the limitations period, the time when Ms. Brown’s habeas petition was pending in
federal court does count towards the limitations period. See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 172-
80 (2001).
CASE 0:26-cv-01101-PAM-DJF Doc. 4 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 5

4
postconviction relief in state court was resolved. 	See, e.g., Nunn v. Hammer, No. 16-CV-2693
(SRN/HB), 2016 WL 5477072, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2016) (“As several courts, including this
one, have previously noted, § 2244(d)(2) merely tolls the clock on the habeas limitations period—
it does not in any way reset it.”).
Ms. Brown’s postconviction proceedings in state court concluded on May 28, 2025, when
the Minnesota Supreme Court declined review of the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ decision
affirming denial of her petition for postconviction relief.2 See Brown v. State, No. A24-0373, 2025
WL 520904 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2025). 	Ms. Brown then had 114 days to file her federal
habeas petition, or until September 19, 2025. As stated above, Ms. Brown did not place her habeas
petition in the prison mail system until January 14, 2026—nearly four months after the limitations
period ended.
Ms. Brown therefore missed the deadline by waiting too long to come back to federal court.
The Court recommends the Petition be denied as untimely and this case dismissed on these
grounds. 	Finally, the Court does not believe that “jurists of reason would find it debatable”
whether the petition is timely, Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 	The Court thus
recommends that a certificate of appealability not be issued. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
2 The 90-day period for Ms. Brown to seek a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of
the United States is not included in the time tolled by Section 2244(d)(2). See Lawrence v. Florida,
549 U.S. 327, 332 (2007). The limitations clock began running after the Minnesota Supreme Court
declined review.
CASE 0:26-cv-01101-PAM-DJF Doc. 4 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 5

5
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. 	The petition for a writ of habeas corpus of petitioner Remona Lysa Brown (ECF
No. 1) be DENIED.
2. 	This case be DISMISSED.
3. 	No certificate of appealability be issued.
Dated: February 11, 2026 	s/ Dulce J. Foster
Dulce J. Foster
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-01101-PAM-DJF Doc. 4 Filed 02/11/26 Page 5 of 5