Riley v. Rish
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Riley v. Rish
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ADRIAN DOMINIC RILEY also known as
amiri-abdul: rasheed el,
Civil No. 23-2804 (JRT/ECW)
Petitioner,
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
LISA STENSETH, Minnesota Correctional
DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
Facility — Rush City Warden,
FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
Respondent.
Adrian Dominic Riley, OID #173945, Minnesota Correctional Facility —
Moose Lake, 1000 Lakeshore Drive, Moose Lake, MN 55767, pro se
Petitioner.
Erin R. Eldridge, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, 445
Minnesota Street, Suite 1400, St. Paul, MN 55101, for Respondent.
Petitioner Adrian Dominic Riley, also known as amiri-abdul: rasheed el, is currently
serving three life sentences at Minnesota Correctional Facility — Moose Lake1 after a
Minnesota jury convicted him on three counts of first-degree murder. State v. Riley, 568
N.W.2d. 518, 520(Minn. 1997). Riley filed a previous habeas petition under28 U.S.C. § 2254
in the District of Minnesota, which was denied as untimely. Riley v. Smith, No. 13- 674,2014 WL 896728
, at *2 (D. Minn. Mar. 6, 2014). Riley filed another petition for writ
1 Riley previously was incarcerated at Rush City but has since been transferred to Moose
Lake.
of habeas corpus and applied to proceed with that petition in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 2
(Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Sept. 11, 2023, Docket No. 1; Appl. to Proceed without
Prepaying Fees or Costs, Sept. 11, 2023, Docket No. 2.) In an order adopting Magistrate
Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), the Court
dismissed his petition as “second or successive” and barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)
because he failed to seek approval from the Eighth Circuit. (Order Adopting R. & R. at 4–
5, Jan. 2, 2024, Docket No. 7.) The Court also denied his application to proceed IFP. (Id.)
Riley now seeks to appeal that dismissal and proceed IFP on appeal. (Notice of Appeal to
8th Cir., Feb. 20, 2024, Docket No. 9; Appl. to Proceed IFP on Appeal, Feb. 20, 2024, Docket
No. 10.) Because the Court finds that Riley’s appeal is not taken in good faith, it will deny
his application to proceed IFP on appeal.
A litigant who seeks to be excused from paying the filing fee for an appeal in a
federal case may apply for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. To qualify for IFP status, the litigant must demonstrate that they cannot afford to pay the full filing fee.28 U.S.C. § 1915
(a)(1). Even if a litigant is found to be indigent, however, IFP status will be denied if the Court finds that the litigant’s appeal is not taken in good faith.Id.
§ 1915(a)(3). Good
2 Riley filed his second habeas petition against Lisa Stenseth, the Minnesota Correctional
Facility Warden at Rush City. Because Riley has since been transferred from Rush City to Moose
Lake, his filings now reference Kris Rish, the Minnesota Correctional Facility Warden at Moose
Lake. The Court will therefore substitute Kris Rish for Lisa Stenseth because the proper
respondent is who currently has custody of the petitioner. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435(2004). faith in this context is judged by an objective standard and not by the appellant’s subjective point of view. Coppedge v. United States,369 U.S. 438
, 444–45 (1962). To determine whether an appeal is taken in good faith, the Court must decide whether the claims to be decided on appeal are factually or legally frivolous. Cf. Neitzke v. Williams,490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989). Legal frivolity includes when “none of the legal points are arguable on their merits.”Id.
(cleaned up).
Habeas petitioners may appeal a final order on their habeas corpus petition only
when a circuit or district court judge has issued a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1). Riley’s petition was denied and a certificate of appealability was not granted.
As such, his appeal is legally frivolous and thus cannot be taken in good faith.
Even if Riley could appeal the dismissal of his petition for habeas relief, his
description of the issues he intends to raise on appeal also lead the Court to conclude that
his appeal is legally frivolous. His notice of appeal and application to proceed IFP on
appeal simply state that his incarceration violates the Federal Bill of Rights and the United
States Constitution, and he seemingly challenges the constitutionality of the laws under
which he was convicted. But he presents no legal or factual support for these statements.
Riley references several statutes and bills in arguing that he is exempt from paying court
filing fees, but the statutes and bills he cites do not apply to him. Because none of his
arguments can be argued on their merits, they are legally frivolous. As such, the Court
will deny Riley’s Application to Proceed IFP on Appeal.?
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed IFP on Appeal [Docket No. 10] is DENIED; and.
2. Kris Rish, Warden of the Minnesota Correction Facility at Moose Lake is
substituted for Lisa Stenseth, Warden of the Minnesota Correction Facility at
Rush City.
DATED: February 29, 2024 □□ W. (Hedin
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
3 Riley’s current petition was dismissed without prejudice. Without prejudice means that
he can refile his petition if he first gets approval from the Eighth Circuit as required for a “second
or successive” petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
-4- Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ADRIAN DOMINIC RILEY also known as
amiri-abdul: rasheed el,
Civil No. 23-2804 (JRT/ECW)
Petitioner,
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
LISA STENSETH, Minnesota Correctional
DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
Facility — Rush City Warden,
FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
Respondent.
Adrian Dominic Riley, OID #173945, Minnesota Correctional Facility —
Moose Lake, 1000 Lakeshore Drive, Moose Lake, MN 55767, pro se
Petitioner.
Erin R. Eldridge, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, 445
Minnesota Street, Suite 1400, St. Paul, MN 55101, for Respondent.
Petitioner Adrian Dominic Riley, also known as amiri-abdul: rasheed el, is currently
serving three life sentences at Minnesota Correctional Facility — Moose Lake1 after a
Minnesota jury convicted him on three counts of first-degree murder. State v. Riley, 568
N.W.2d. 518, 520(Minn. 1997). Riley filed a previous habeas petition under28 U.S.C. § 2254
in the District of Minnesota, which was denied as untimely. Riley v. Smith, No. 13- 674,2014 WL 896728
, at *2 (D. Minn. Mar. 6, 2014). Riley filed another petition for writ
1 Riley previously was incarcerated at Rush City but has since been transferred to Moose
Lake.
of habeas corpus and applied to proceed with that petition in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 2
(Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Sept. 11, 2023, Docket No. 1; Appl. to Proceed without
Prepaying Fees or Costs, Sept. 11, 2023, Docket No. 2.) In an order adopting Magistrate
Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), the Court
dismissed his petition as “second or successive” and barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)
because he failed to seek approval from the Eighth Circuit. (Order Adopting R. & R. at 4–
5, Jan. 2, 2024, Docket No. 7.) The Court also denied his application to proceed IFP. (Id.)
Riley now seeks to appeal that dismissal and proceed IFP on appeal. (Notice of Appeal to
8th Cir., Feb. 20, 2024, Docket No. 9; Appl. to Proceed IFP on Appeal, Feb. 20, 2024, Docket
No. 10.) Because the Court finds that Riley’s appeal is not taken in good faith, it will deny
his application to proceed IFP on appeal.
A litigant who seeks to be excused from paying the filing fee for an appeal in a
federal case may apply for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. To qualify for IFP status, the litigant must demonstrate that they cannot afford to pay the full filing fee.28 U.S.C. § 1915
(a)(1). Even if a litigant is found to be indigent, however, IFP status will be denied if the Court finds that the litigant’s appeal is not taken in good faith.Id.
§ 1915(a)(3). Good
2 Riley filed his second habeas petition against Lisa Stenseth, the Minnesota Correctional
Facility Warden at Rush City. Because Riley has since been transferred from Rush City to Moose
Lake, his filings now reference Kris Rish, the Minnesota Correctional Facility Warden at Moose
Lake. The Court will therefore substitute Kris Rish for Lisa Stenseth because the proper
respondent is who currently has custody of the petitioner. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435(2004). faith in this context is judged by an objective standard and not by the appellant’s subjective point of view. Coppedge v. United States,369 U.S. 438
, 444–45 (1962). To determine whether an appeal is taken in good faith, the Court must decide whether the claims to be decided on appeal are factually or legally frivolous. Cf. Neitzke v. Williams,490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989). Legal frivolity includes when “none of the legal points are arguable on their merits.”Id.
(cleaned up).
Habeas petitioners may appeal a final order on their habeas corpus petition only
when a circuit or district court judge has issued a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1). Riley’s petition was denied and a certificate of appealability was not granted.
As such, his appeal is legally frivolous and thus cannot be taken in good faith.
Even if Riley could appeal the dismissal of his petition for habeas relief, his
description of the issues he intends to raise on appeal also lead the Court to conclude that
his appeal is legally frivolous. His notice of appeal and application to proceed IFP on
appeal simply state that his incarceration violates the Federal Bill of Rights and the United
States Constitution, and he seemingly challenges the constitutionality of the laws under
which he was convicted. But he presents no legal or factual support for these statements.
Riley references several statutes and bills in arguing that he is exempt from paying court
filing fees, but the statutes and bills he cites do not apply to him. Because none of his
arguments can be argued on their merits, they are legally frivolous. As such, the Court
will deny Riley’s Application to Proceed IFP on Appeal.?
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed IFP on Appeal [Docket No. 10] is DENIED; and.
2. Kris Rish, Warden of the Minnesota Correction Facility at Moose Lake is
substituted for Lisa Stenseth, Warden of the Minnesota Correction Facility at
Rush City.
DATED: February 29, 2024 □□ W. (Hedin
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
3 Riley’s current petition was dismissed without prejudice. Without prejudice means that
he can refile his petition if he first gets approval from the Eighth Circuit as required for a “second
or successive” petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
-4- Reference
- Status
- Unknown