UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Shawn Clarke Spottswood, Case No. 25-cv-02933 (ECT/ECW) Petitioner, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Washington County MN Probation, Dakota County MN, Ann Herbst, and Commissioner of Corrections, Respondents.

On August 7, 2025, after reviewing Petitioner Shawn Clarke Spottswood’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Dkt. 1 (“Petition”)), this Court ordered him to “show cause why the Court should not dismiss this action . . . for failure to exhaust state-court remedies.” (Dkt. 3 at 3-4.) The Order warned that if Spottswood did not comply, the Court would recommend dismissal. (See id. at 4.) Spottswood has not submitted the required response. As a result, for the reasons stated in the earlier Order (see id. at 3-4), the Court recommends denying the Petition for failure to exhaust state-court remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).

Given that recommendation, the Court also recommends denying as moot Spottswood’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Dkt. 2).

In addition, 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 district court may issue a COA only if the 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 for procedural reasons, a COA is proper 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). No reasonable court, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, would disagree with the recommended dismissal. The Court therefore recommends denying a COA.

RECOMMENDATION Based upon the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 1. Petitioner Shawn Clarke Spottswood’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Dkt. 1) be DENIED for failure to exhaust state-court remedies.

2. This action be DISMISSED.

3. Spottswood’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Dkt. 2) be DENIED as moot.

4. No certificate of appealability be issued. s/ Elizabeth Cowan Wright Dated: September 11, 2025 ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT 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).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Shawn Clarke Spottswood, Case No. 25-cv-02933 (ECT/ECW) Petitioner, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Washington County MN Probation, Dakota County MN, Ann Herbst, and Commissioner of Corrections, Respondents.

On August 7, 2025, after reviewing Petitioner Shawn Clarke Spottswood’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Dkt. 1 (“Petition”)), this Court ordered him to “show cause why the Court should not dismiss this action . . . for failure to exhaust state-court remedies.” (Dkt. 3 at 3-4.) The Order warned that if Spottswood did not comply, the Court would recommend dismissal. (See id. at 4.) Spottswood has not submitted the required response. As a result, for the reasons stated in the earlier Order (see id. at 3-4), the Court recommends denying the Petition for failure to exhaust state-court remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).

Given that recommendation, the Court also recommends denying as moot Spottswood’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Dkt. 2).

In addition, 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 district court may issue a COA only if the 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 for procedural reasons, a COA is proper 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). No reasonable court, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, would disagree with the recommended dismissal. The Court therefore recommends denying a COA.

RECOMMENDATION Based upon the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 1. Petitioner Shawn Clarke Spottswood’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Dkt. 1) be DENIED for failure to exhaust state-court remedies.

2. This action be DISMISSED.

3. Spottswood’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Dkt. 2) be DENIED as moot.

4. No certificate of appealability be issued. s/ Elizabeth Cowan Wright Dated: September 11, 2025 ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT 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).