Bewaji v. Falgreen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
OIabamidele Olumide Bewaji,
Petitioner,
v.
Jed Falgreen,
Respondent.
Case No. 25-cv-4342 (JWB/DTS)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Olabamidele Olumide Bewaji’s
Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody,
Dkt No. 8 (Petition).1 For the following reasons, the Court recommends dismissing the
action.
In March 2023, a jury in Minnesota’s Blue Earth County convicted Bewaji of two
counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of fourth-degree criminal
sexual conduct. See Verdict 1–3, State v. Bewaji, Nos. 07-cr-21-0738 and 07-cr-21-0800
(Minn. Dist. Ct. Mar. 30, 2023).2 In June 2023, the trial court sentenced Bewaji to 76
1 Bewaji began this action on November 14, 2025. See Docket. This Court later ordered
Bewaji to submit an amended petition that named a proper respondent and used the
standard form for § 2254 petitions. See Order, Dkt No. 4 (December 2025 Order). Bewaji
then submitted several filings, but none were proper § 2254 petitions. On January 7, 2026,
Bewaji filed the Petition, which the Clerk of Court used to open a new matter, No. 26-cv-
0089. On January 16, 2026, U.S. District Judge Nancy E. Brasel noted that the Petition
appeared intended to comply with this Court’s order. See Order 1–2, Bewaji v. Falgreen,
No. 26-cv-0089 (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2026). She then administratively terminated the new
case and transferred the Petition to this matter.
2 The Court may take judicial notice of public state-court records. See, e.g., Stutzka v.
McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 760 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Eagleboy, 200
F.3d 1137, 1140 (8th Cir. 1999)).
CASE 0:25-cv-04342-JWB-DTS Doc. 9 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 5

2
months’ imprisonment, 38 months’ supervised release, and a “lifetime conditional release
period.” Order and Warrant of Commitment 2, State v. Bewaji, No. 07-cr-21-800 (Minn.
Dist. Ct. June 21, 2023) (summarizing combined sentence from both of Bewaji’s cases).
Bewaji is currently serving this sentence at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in
Faribault, Minnesota (MCF–Faribault). See Docket.
The Petition challenges Bewaji’s convictions in both state-court matters underlying
his current imprisonment. See Pet. 1. The Petition raises one ground, which concerns
Jed Falgreen’s statements during victim-impact proceedings before sentencing. See id.
at 6.3 Bewaji asserts that Falgreen told the court that Bewaji should have been barred
from working in care facilities because he was fired from a Mankato senior-care facility
after allegedly “attempting to entrap and assault a seventeen-year-old co-worker in the
stairwell in 2020.” Id. at 6. Bewaji characterizes this statement as “uncalled for, baseless,”
“illogical,” prejudicial, and motivated by hatred. Id. Construing the pro se Petition liberally,
the Court construes Bewaji as raising a Fourteenth Amendment due-process challenge—
specifically, that the sentencing court relied on materially false, inflammatory, and
unrelated allegations, resulting in an unconstitutional sentencing proceeding and unlawful
custody.
3 As the Court understands it, Falgreen is related to one of the victims of the crimes for
which Bewaji was convicted.
As the Court has already explained to Bewaji, see Dec. 2025 Order 2, Falgreen is not a
proper respondent in this Petition. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the proper respondent in a
habeas action is the state officer who has current physical custody of the petitioner. See,
e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434–35 (2004). Because Be-
waji is currently incarcerated at the MCF–Faribault, he should have named that facility’s
warden as the respondent here.
CASE 0:25-cv-04342-JWB-DTS Doc. 9 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 5

3
A court can grant a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254 only if “the applicant has
exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).
This “exhaustion” requirement rests on principles of comity and federalism. These
principles ensure state courts have a “full and fair opportunity to resolve federal
constitutional claims before those claims are presented to the federal courts.” O’Sullivan
v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); see also, e.g., Brende v. Young, 907 F.3d 1080,
1084 (8th Cir. 2018) (citing O’Sullivan).
To provide that opportunity, a prisoner must “fairly present” each federal claim to
every appropriate state court, including the state’s highest court if it offers discretionary
review. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (quoting Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S.
364, 365 (1995) (per curiam)); see also, e.g., Deck v. Jennings, 978 F.3d 578, 581 (8th
Cir. 2020) (making similar point (quoting Morris v. Norris, 83 F.3d 268, 270 (8th Cir.
1996)). In Minnesota, a § 2254 applicant must fairly present each claim to the Minnesota
Supreme Court before seeking federal relief. See, e.g., Turnage v. Fabian, 606 F.3d 933,
936 (8th Cir. 2010); Bell v. Stenseth, No. 23-cv-3881, 2024 WL 4839826, at *4 (D. Minn.
July 29, 2024) (citing Fraction v. Minnesota, 678 F. Supp. 2d 908, 916 (D. Minn. 2008)),
report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 4839157 (D. Minn. Nov. 20, 2024).
The question, then, is whether Bewaji “fairly presented” his due-process claim to
Minnesota’s state courts. The Petition suggests he did not; Bewaji admits he did not raise
this issue on direct appeal, stating he “was waiting for the outcome of the appeal judgment
before [raising] it.” Pet. 7. Available records confirm this. Bewaji appealed to the
Minnesota Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction and sentence. The Minnesota
Supreme Court then denied his petition for further review. See State v. Bewaji, No. A23-
CASE 0:25-cv-04342-JWB-DTS Doc. 9 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 5

4
1398, 2024 WL 4260272, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2024), review denied (Minn. Dec.
17, 2024), cert. denied, No. 24-7420, 2025 WL 2824015 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2025). The Court
of Appeals’s decision does not indicate that Bewaji raised any due-process argument
regarding Falgreen’s statements.
Bewaji’s Petition concedes that he failed to exhaust state-court remedies for the
Petition’s sole ground. The Court therefore recommends denying the Petition and
dismissing this action.
Two points remain: First, given this Court’s dismissal recommendation, the Court
also recommends denying Bewaji’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dkt. No. 3,
as moot.
Second, a § 2254 petitioner cannot appeal an adverse ruling without a certificate
of appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). A court may
issue a COA only if a petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a petition is dismissed on procedural
grounds, a COA is warranted only if “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000). The Court finds it unlikely that any court would reach a different conclusion here.
Accordingly, the Court recommends denying a COA.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records and proceedings herein,
THE COURT HEREBY RECOMMENDS:
1. 	Petitioner Olabamidele Olumide Bewaji’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, Dkt.
No. 8, be DENIED.
CASE 0:25-cv-04342-JWB-DTS Doc. 9 Filed 01/21/26 Page 4 of 5

5
2. 	Bewaji’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dkt. No. 3, be
DENIED as moot.
3. 	This action be DISMISSED.
4. 	No certificate of appealability be issued.
Date: January 21, 2026 	s/ David T. Schultz
DAVID T. SCHULTZ
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-04342-JWB-DTS Doc. 9 Filed 01/21/26 Page 5 of 5