Brown v. Halvorson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Remona Lysa Brown,
Petitioner,
v.
Kathy Halvorson, Warden,
Respondent.
Case No. 23-cv-01998 (PAM/ECW)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Remona Lysa Brown’s Motion to
Reopen Case (Dkt. 9) and self-styled Motion to Consider a Medical Eye Exam (Dkt. 11).
This case has been referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.1. For the following reasons, the Court
recommends both motions be denied.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Brown initiated this action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“First
Petition”) that was received by the Court on June 29, 2023. (Dkt. 1.) The First Petition
sought to challenge Brown’s conviction in Minnesota state court on seven counts of
aiding and abetting theft by false representation. See State v. Brown, No. A21-1221,
2022 WL 3581576 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2022). This Court subsequently conducted
an initial review of the First Petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. (See Dkt. 5 at 1.)
CASE 0:23-cv-01998-PAM-ECW Doc. 13 Filed 04/03/26 Page 1 of 5

On July 24, 2023, the Court ordered Brown to show cause why the First Petition
should not be summarily dismissed without prejudice for being a “mixed” petition
presenting both exhausted and unexhausted claims for relief, and gave Brown 30 days in
which to either (1) show that she had exhausted certain claims, (2) voluntarily dismiss her
petition as a whole, or (3) voluntarily dismiss only her unexhausted claims. (Id. at 2.)
On August 17, 2023, the Court received Brown’s Notice of Dismissal, which
stated that she had decided to dismiss the entire habeas petition and “return to state court
to prosecute all unexhausted claims through a petition for post-conviction review and
relief, before returning back to Federal Court.” (Dkt. 6 at 3.) On August 21, 2023,
United States District Judge Paul A. Magnuson issued an order dismissing the First
Petition without prejudice. (Dkt. 7.) Judgment was entered on August 22, 2023. (Dkt.
8.)
On February 5, 2025, Brown brought a new Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(“Second Petition”) challenging her state court convictions. Brown v. Minnesota Dept. of
Corrections, Case No. 26-cv-01101 (PAM/DJF), Dkt. 1. On February 11, 2026, United
States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation concluding
that the Second Petition is time barred and recommending that the case be dismissed. Id.,
Dkt. 4. Brown has since filed an Objection to that Report and Recommendation, which
remains under advisement as of the date of this Report and Recommendation. See id.,
Dkt. 6.
On February 26, 2026, Brown filed a Motion to Reopen the Case in this matter.
(Dkt. 9.) Brown states that she did not expect her Second Petition to be assigned a new
CASE 0:23-cv-01998-PAM-ECW Doc. 13 Filed 04/03/26 Page 2 of 5

case number, and that she had assumed that her First Petition would be automatically
reinstated. (Id. at 2.) Brown now seeks relief from the judgment entered in this matter,
citing Rule 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) Brown
states that she has cataracts covering both eyes which impede her vision, and that she has
been waiting over three years to see an optometrist at the state correctional facility where
she is incarcerated. (Id.) Brown subsequently filed a self-styled Motion to Consider a
Medical Eye Exam, which the Court received on March 30, 2026. (Dkt. 11.) This
motion was filed in both this matter and the matter opened for the Second Petition. See
Brown v. Minnesota Dept. of Corrections, Case No. 26-cv-01101-PAM-DJF, Dkt. 6.
Brown has provided medical records related to her impaired vision and explains that this
impairment is the reason that her Second Petition was not timely filed. (Dkt. 11 at 1-2.)
II. 	DISCUSSION
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, a court may relieve a party from a final
judgment due to “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” or “any other
reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (6). A Rule 60(b) motion “must be
made within a reasonable time—and [for the reason of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect] no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date
of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). “A defendant must present ‘extraordinary
circumstances’ to justify relief” under this rule. Rouse v. United States, 14 F.4th 795, 799
(8th Cir. 2021) (quoting Davis v. Kelley, 855 F.3d 833, 835 (8th Cir. 2017)). Such
circumstances “rarely occur in the habeas context.” Id. (quoting Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545
U.S. 524, 535 (2005).
CASE 0:23-cv-01998-PAM-ECW Doc. 13 Filed 04/03/26 Page 3 of 5

As an initial matter, to the extent that Brown seeks relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1)
based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, her motion is untimely
because more than one year has passed since the entry of judgment in this matter, which
took place on August 22, 2023. (See Dkt. 8.) But even to the extent that Brown seeks
relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), which permits a court to grant relief for “any other
reason that justifies relief,” relief is not warranted in this matter.
The only reasons that Brown has asserted warrant relief are her impaired vision
and the delay she has experienced in receiving medical treatment related to her impaired
vision. (See generally Dkts. 9, 11.) Brown asserts that these problems prevented her
from timely filing her Second Petition. (Dkt. 11 at 1.) However, Brown has not asserted
that her vision has any relationship to the reason judgment was entered in her First
Petition. To the contrary, Brown voluntarily dismissed her First Petition in order to
“prosecute all unexhausted claims through a petition for post-conviction review and
relief” in state court. (Dkt. 6 at 3.) Regardless of whether Brown’s vision limitations
have any relevance to the timeliness of her Second Petition, filed in Case No. 26-cv-
01101 (PAM/DJF), they have no bearing on her First Petition, filed in this case.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that Brown’s Motion to Reopen the Case and
Motion to Consider a Medical Eye Exam be denied in this case.
CASE 0:23-cv-01998-PAM-ECW Doc. 13 Filed 04/03/26 Page 4 of 5

III. 	RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. 	Petitioner Remona Lysa Brown’s Motion to Reopen Case (Dkt. 9) be
DENIED.
2. 	Petitioner Remona Lysa Brown’s Motion to Consider a Medical Eye Exam
(Dkt. 11) be DENIED.
Dated: April 3, 2026 	s/Elizabeth Cowan Wright
ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: The Report and Recommendation component of this Order and
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 0:23-cv-01998-PAM-ECW Doc. 13 Filed 04/03/26 Page 5 of 5