Senty-Haugen v. Minnesota Department of Human Services et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Arthur Dale Senty-Haugen,
Petitioner,
v.
Minnesota Department of Human
Services; and Minnesota Sex Offender
Program,
Respondents.
No. 25-cv-3377 (KMM/DJF)
ORDER
In a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated February 12, 2026, United States
Magistrate 	Judge 	Dulce 	J. 	Foster 	recommended 	that 	Petitioner 	Arthur 	Dale
Senty-Haugen’s Petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied, the action be dismissed,
and that no certificate of appealability be issued. (Dkt. 12.) Judge Foster concluded that the
Petition should be denied because Mr. Senty-Haugen both failed to exhaust his state-court
remedies and lacked standing to challenge the decision by the State of Minnesota, via the
Minnesota Sex Offender Program (“MSOP”), to transfer him into the custody of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons. (Id. at 5–9.) Judge Foster also recommended that no certificate
of appealability be issued because “no reasonable jurist would find this recommended
dismissal debatable.” (Id. at 9.) Mr. Senty-Haugen filed his objections on March 23, 2026.
(Dkt. 13.)
CASE 0:25-cv-03377-KMM-DJF Doc. 14 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 3

2
The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which specific objections
are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). In the absence of objections, the
Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Nur v. Olmsted County., 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949
(D. Minn. 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795
(8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). District courts “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
After carefully reviewing the R&R and the entire record, the Court finds no error
and adopts the R&R. Mr. Senty-Haugen foremost objects to the conclusion that he failed
to exhaust his state court remedies before filing his Petition. (Dkt. 13 at 1.) He argues that
he lacks any avenue to challenge MSOP’s detainer because he is no longer in MSOP
custody, which his former counsel advised made internal agency review unavailable. (Id.)
But even if this were true, Mr. Senty-Haugen does not allege that he has attempted to
challenge his detainer by filing a lawsuit in Minnesota state courts. Without having done
so, Mr. Senty-Haugen has not exhausted his state court remedies, and the Court is
precluded from hearing his Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); Parette v. Lockhart, 927
F.2d 366, 366–67 (8th Cir. 1991) (holding a petitioner failed to exhaust his state court
remedies where he “never presented his challenge to the Louisiana detainer to a Louisiana
state court”). Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. See Whatley v.
Morrison, 947 F.2d 869, 870 (8th Cir. 1991) (“When a district court dismisses a habeas
petition for petitioner’s failure to exhaust state remedies, . . . the dismissal should be
CASE 0:25-cv-03377-KMM-DJF Doc. 14 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 3

3
without prejudice.”). The Court also agrees that no certificate of appealability should be
issued.
Based on the above, and on the full record before the Court, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Mr. Senty-Haugen’s Objections (Dkt. 13) are OVERRULED;
2. 	The Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. 12) is ACCEPTED;
3. 	Petitioner Arthur Dale Senty-Haugen’s Petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt.
1) is DENIED without prejudice; and
4. 	No certificate of appealability is issued.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: March 24, 2026 	s/ Katherine M. Menendez
Katherine M. Menendez
United States District Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-03377-KMM-DJF Doc. 14 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 3