govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_24-cv-04459-2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
 
    Sean William Roulo, 
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
Paul Schnell, MN Commissioner of 
Corrections, and Keith Ellison, The Attorney 
General of the State of: Minnesota, 
 
Respondents. 
  File No. 24-cv-4459 (ECT/JFD) 
 
 
 
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 
AND RECOMMENDATION 
________________________________________________________________________ 
Petitioner Sean William Roulo commenced this action pro se by filing a petition for 
a writ of habeas corpus.  Pet. [ECF No. 1].  The case is before the Court on  a Report and 
Recommendation [ECF No. 33] issued by Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty.  Judge 
Docherty recommends dismissing Roulo’s petition without prejudice because he did not 
exhaust available state remedies for the federal constitutional violations he now alleges.   
R&R at 1.  Roulo filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.  ECF No. 34 .  
Roulo’s objections mean the Report and Recommendation is reviewed de novo pursuant 
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b)(3).  I have undertaken that de novo review 
and agree with Judge Docherty’s analysis and conclusions.   And I conclude that no 
certificate of appealability shall issue.   
Roulo failed to exhaust his state court remedies for the federal constitutional 
violations he alleges in his habeas petition because these claims were not presented to the 
state court.  “Before seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus, a state prisoner must exhaust 
available state remedies, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), thereby giving the State the opportunity 
CASE 0:24-cv-04459-ECT-JFD     Doc. 35     Filed 06/05/26     Page 1 of 4
2 
 
to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.”  Baldwin v. 
Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (citation modified); see also Abdullah v. Groose, 75 F.3d 
408, 411 (8th Cir. 1996) (“Before a state prisoner is entitled to federal habeas corpus relief, 
he must first exhaust his state remedies and present the habeas claim to the state court.”).   
“In order to present a habeas claim to the state court, a prisoner must ‘fairly present’  not 
only the facts, but also the substance of his federal habeas corpus claim.”  Abdullah, 75 
F.3d at 411 (citing Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982) (per curiam)).  Although 
Roulo points to a supplemental pro se brief he sought leave to file during his appeal to the 
Minnesota Court of Appeals, see ECF No. 34 at 2 (citing ECF No. 12-17), that brief was 
never properly before the Court of Appeals, which considered only the “two issues 
presented in the brief that was filed by the assistant state public defender.”  See State v. 
Roulo, No. A21-1223, 2023 WL 126425, at *2 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2023).1   Roulo also 
points to a “Code Red COVID-19 lockdown at MCF Faribault” and a “forced prison labor 
requirement” during “the critical final weeks of the direct appeal briefing period” as 
excuses for his failure to exhaust state remedies.  See ECF No. 34 at 6–7.  Given that Roulo 
was allowed numerous extensions over a period of five months to submit a completed pro 
se supplemental brief (yet failed to do so), I am not satisfied that his circumstances present 
 
1  In an order dated September 1, 2022, the Minnesota Court of Appeals described the 
history of Roulo’s incomplete pro se supplemental brief filings, the numerous extensions 
granted for Roulo to file a completed pro se supplemental brief, and its ultimate decision—
after giving Roulo five months to submit a completed pro se supplemental brief— to deny 
Roulo’s final motion for further extension and order his additional reply brief stricken from 
the record.  See State of Minn. v. Roulo, No. A21-1223 (Sept. 1, 2022) (filed here as ECF 
No. 12-23).   
 
CASE 0:24-cv-04459-ECT-JFD     Doc. 35     Filed 06/05/26     Page 2 of 4
3 
 
the type of “special circumstances sufficient to excuse complete exhaustion of state 
remedies” that the Eighth Circuit has found sufficient.  See Chitwood v. Dowd, 889 F.2d 
781, 785 (8th Cir. 1989) (excusing complete exhaustion of state remedies where petitioner 
“made a continual good faith effort to bring his petition before the proper forum and . . . 
faced roadblocks at every turn”).   
To obtain a certificate of appealability, Roulo must make a “substantial showing of 
the denial of a constitutional right,” id. § 2253(c)(2), which means he “must demonstrate 
that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 
debatable or wrong,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).  Here, the conclusion 
that Roulo failed to exhaust his state court remedies is not debatable.  Therefore, I conclude 
that no certificate of appealability shall issue.2 
Therefore, based on all the files, records, and proceedings in this case, IT IS 
ORDERED THAT: 
1. The Objections to the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 34] are 
OVERRULED; 
2. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 33] is ACCEPTED in full;  
3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is DENIED;  
4. The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and 
  
 
2  To the extent Roulo objects to the denial of his request for an administrative stay, 
see ECF No. 34 at 3–6, this issue has been adequately addressed in three previous Orders 
and will not be revisited here.  See ECF Nos. 16, 21, 23. 
CASE 0:24-cv-04459-ECT-JFD     Doc. 35     Filed 06/05/26     Page 3 of 4
4 
 
5. No certificate of appealability shall issue. 
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 
 
 
Dated: June 5, 2026     s/ Eric C. Tostrud     
      Eric C. Tostrud 
      United States District Court 
CASE 0:24-cv-04459-ECT-JFD     Doc. 35     Filed 06/05/26     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight