Ali v. Clay County Sheriff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Abdi Yarrow Ali,
Petitioner,
v.
Clay County Sheriff,
Respondent.
Case No. 25-cv-3983 (JRT/LIB)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge on a general
assignment under 28 U.S.C. § 636, and on Petitioner Abdi Yarrow Ali’s Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus, [Docket No. 1].
Petitioner Abdi Yarrow Ali has requested federal habeas corpus relief on the grounds that
his pretrial detention at the Clay County jail is unlawful. (Pet. [Docket No. 1]). This matter comes
before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a general assignment made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Upon initiating this action, Petitioner’s submissions did not include either the $5 filing fee
or an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Accordingly, on October 16, 2025, the
Clerk’s Office mailed him a letter directing him to either pay the filing fee or submit a complete
IFP application within fifteen days of the date of the letter. [Docket No. 2]. The letter forewarned
Petitioner that if he failed to comply with the letter’s requirements, this matter could be summarily
dismissed without prejudice. [Docket No. 2]. This letter was not returned as undeliverable.
This deadline has now passed, and Petitioner has neither paid the filing fee for this action
nor submitted an IFP application. In fact, he has not communicated with the Court about this case
at all since commencing this action. Accordingly, this Court now recommends, consistent with the
CASE 0:25-cv-03983-JRT-LIB Doc. 3 Filed 11/19/25 Page 1 of 3

2
warning previously given to Petitioner, that this action be dismissed without prejudice under
Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 F. App’x 496, 497
(8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“A district court has discretion to dismiss an action under Rule 41(b)
for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, or to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any
court order.”).
Notably, even if this Court were to consider the merits of Petitioner’s claim here, the Court
would determine that Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable habeas claim. Petitioner brings his
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (See Pet. [Docket No. 1]). Although § 2241 itself does not
contain a requirement that a habeas petitioner first exhaust his claims in state court, “federal courts
have consistently recognized that the principles of comity and federalism require state pre-trial
detainees to present their constitutional claims in state courts before seeking federal habeas relief
under § 2241.” See Olson v. Washington Cty., Case No. 12-cv-2807 (MJD/AJB), 2013 WL
1871523, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 24, 2013) (collecting cases), report and recommendation adopted,
2013 WL 1867571 (D. Minn. May 3, 2013). “This requirement of fair-presentment of claims
generally requires appellate exhaustion of those claims, which in turn requires that judgment be
entered in the state-court prosecution—meaning, ultimately, that state pretrial detainees usually
cannot seek federal habeas relief until after they have been convicted (or, put another way, until
after they have ceased being pretrial detainees).” Abdikarim v. State, Case No. 24-cv-2013
(NEB/LIB), 2024 WL 3557772, at *2 (D. Minn. June 17, 2024), report and recommendation
adopted, 2024 WL 3552960 (D. Minn. July 26, 2024); see also Wingo v. Ciccone, 507 F.2d 354,
357 (8th Cir. 1974) (“Absent extraordinary circumstances, federal courts should not interfere with
the states’ pending judicial processes prior to trial and conviction, even though the prisoner claims
he is being held in violation of the Constitution.”).
CASE 0:25-cv-03983-JRT-LIB Doc. 3 Filed 11/19/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Here, Petitioner claims that he was subject to an unlawful search and seizure and that
potentially exculpatory evidence has been withheld from him in his state court proceedings. (See
Pet. [Docket No. 1 at 6). These are not the sorts of claims that are exceptions to the usual
requirement of post-judgment exhaustion by state detainees. See Castillo-Alvarez v. Hawkinson,
2011 WL 3798585, at *2 (D. Minn. Aug. 25, 2011) (describing such exceptional circumstances as
including allegations of double jeopardy and speedy trial violations) (citing Braden v. 30th Judicial
Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 489-90 (1973)). Accordingly, even if Petitioner had elected to
prosecute this action and comply with the requirements on the October 16, 2025, letter, the present
Petition would nevertheless be subject to dismissal for failure to state a cognizable habeas claim.
Therefore, based upon the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT this action be DISMISSED without
prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Dated: November 19, 2025 	s/Leo I. Brisbois
Hon. Leo I. Brisbois
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 0:25-cv-03983-JRT-LIB Doc. 3 Filed 11/19/25 Page 3 of 3