Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Joel Marvin Munt, Petitioner v. Eddie Miles, Warden

8-84860-Wi. UIN AL

IN THE

/

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Joel Marvin Munt

---

PETITIONER

(Your Name)

VS.

Eddie Miles

RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

Minnesota Court of Appeals

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Joel Marvin Munt

(Your Name)

5329 Osgood Ave N.

(Address)

Stillwater, MN 55082

(City, State, Zip Code)

N/A

(Phone Number)

Joel Marvin Munt

-71

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

Was it error to not consider the DOC's role in filing delays

when ruling Writ of Habeas corpus moot?

Did Court error by holding his petition was moot?

Did Court error in equating mootness with frivolousness in

this case?

Joel Marvin Munt

LIST OF PARTIES

4-1 All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

I All parties do not appear in the caption- of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

Joel Marvin Munt

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONSBELOW ......................................................................................................................1

JURISDICTION.............................................................................................................................2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ...................................................3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .........................................................................................................4

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT .........................................................................................35

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................40

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals

APPENDIX B Denial of Review by Minnesota Supreme Court

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

Joel Marvin Munt

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

AUTHORITY

CASES

Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301 (10th

Cir. 2010)

Allen v. Likins, 517 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1975)

Atwell v. Lavan, 557 F.Supp.2d 532 (M.D.Pa.

2008)

Bronowicz v. Allegeny County, 804 F.3d 338

(3rd Cir. 2015)

Case v. Pung, 413 N.W.2d 261 (Minn.App.1989)

City News & Novelty, Inc. v. Waukesha, 531 US

278 (2001)

Clark v. Brewer, 779 F.2d 226 (8th Cir. 1985)

Daywitt v. State of MN, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

87951 (D.Minn. 2015)

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 US 641 (1997)

Entzi v. Redmann, 485 F.3d 988 (8th Cir. 2007)

Favors, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11230, 2013WL

4052668

Favors v. Hoover, 2014 US Dist. LEXIS 140714

(D. Minn. 2014)

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 US 777 (1994)

Hickman v. State of Mo, 144 F.3d 1141 (8th

Cir. 1998)

In re McCaskill, 603 N.W.2d 326 (Minn. 1999)

In re Schmidt, 443 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 1989)

Jones v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,' 2010 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 78912 (D.Minn.)

Kahn v. Griffin, 701 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 2005),

Parks v. Dooley, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23189

(D.Minn. 2011)

Portley-El v. Brill, 288 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir.

2002)

Pritchard v. Perry, 508 F.2d 423 (4th Cir.

1975)

Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973)

Smith v. Hundley, 190 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 1999)

State v. Barrientos, 837 N.W.2d 294, 304

(2013)

State v. C.A., 304 N.W.2d 353 (Minn. 1981)

State ex rel. Djonne v. Schoen, 299 Minn. 131;

217 N.W.2d 508; 1974 Minn LEXIS 1425

(Minn. 1974)

Steele v. Van Burden Public School Dist., 845

Joel Marvin Munt

PAGE NUMBER(S)

9

9

9

9

9

8

5,8

9

9

6

9

9

8

6

5,7

9

5

9

9

7

8

5,8

5

7

7

9

AUTHORITY

F.2d 1492 (8th Cir. 1988)

U.S. v. Sanchez-Gomez, 798 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir.

2015)

U.S. v. Waigren, 885 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 1989)

Van Bergen v. Minnesota, 59 F.3d 1541 (8th

Cir. 1995)

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 US 74 (2005)

STATUTES AND RULES

S.Ct.R. 10

OTHER

Joel Marvin Mont

PAGE NUMBER(S)

7

6

8

9

11,12

tii:i:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment

below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[ I For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

to the petition and is

; or,

[ I reported at

[ I has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ I is unpublished.

-

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

to

; or,

[ I reported at

[ I has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ I is unpublished.

[x I For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix A

to the petition and is

; or,

[ I reported at

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

I is unpublished.

The opinion of the

appears at Appendix

court

to the petition and is

LI I reported at

; or,

LI I has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

LI I is unpublished.

Joel Marvin Munt

1.

JURISDICTION

[

I For cases from' federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case was

[

]No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

IA timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court

of Appeals on the following date:

and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

,

[

]An extension of time to file the petition for writ of certiorari was

granted to and including

(date) on

(date) in Application No.

A

_____

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

[ X I For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix A

[

]No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[x IA timely petition for review was thereafter denied on the following date:

-

/10\9.

,

and a copy of the order denying review

appears at Appendix B

[

]An extension of time to file the petition for writ of certiorari was

granted to and including

(date) on

(date) in Application No.

A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).

Joel Marvin Munt

2.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Provision

U.S. Const. Art. 1 Sec. 9 Cl. 2

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be

suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the

public Safety may require it.

U.S. Const. Art. VI Cl. 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which

shall be made in Pursuance thereof

shall be the supreme Law

of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound

thereby

...

U.S. Const. Art. VI Cl. 3

The senators and representatives, and the members of the

several state legislatures; and all executive and judicial

officers, both of the United States and the several states,

shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this

Constitution

U.S. Const. Amd. 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the

right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition

the Government for a redress of grievances.

U.S. Const. Amd. 14

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge

the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United

States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to

any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of

the laws.

Joel Marvin Munt

3.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Was it error to not consider the DOC's role in filing delays

when ruling Writ of Habeas corpus moot?

While in SEG at STW, the DOC did not permit Petitioner any

envelopes, his address book, legal papers or even his shower shoes

despite repeated requests and being required to by policy. They also

refused to allow him to even see the disciplinary rules that he was

charged with violating. He also lacked paper or writing implements

sufficient to create any pleading. No legal assistance is provided to

prisoners while they are in SEG and they are denied any physical

access to the law library. You only can do kites. Requests to the

LLSP for case law take a week to nearly a year and even then are only

for looking up specific cases you already have the citation for. You

have no source of forms and Plaintiff was not even permitted court

addresses. It was impossible for him to file a habeas petition or

anything else with the courts during this time. Even when he got out

of SEG the DOC staff systemically conspired to impede his ability to

get together the materials needed to file his petition and to send it

out. They even retaliated against him for his intent to file it,

destroying multiple pieces of evidence, putting him in SEG again,

transferring him, and having people go through his property and take

his years of research and the legal papers needed to pursue his cases.

It defies any concept of justice if the DOC is permitted to

prevent any review of constitutional violations it has committed

simply by doing so in the guise of prison discipline and then

preventing him from being able to plead while in SEG.

Joel Marvin Munt

4.

There is a Mootness exception for issues capable of repetition

but evading review (In re Schmidt, 443 N.W.2d 824, 826 (Minn. 1989)).

Mootness Doctrine Exception if : a) challenged conduct too brief to be

fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration and 1) if it is

reasonably likely complaining party will be subject to same action

again.

Daywitt v. State of MN, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87951 (D.Minn.

2015) (citing Smith v. Hundley, 190 F.3d 852, 855 (8th Cir. 1999))

The DOC ensures litigation cannot even be begun while in SEG. The

DOC's conduct has shown Petitioner will again and again be punished

when no rule has been violated, and that they will utilize each

instance to further cripple his access to the courts and harm his

court cases.

Petitioner asks this court to rule the exception applies even

when petitioner is prevented from filing while in SEG.

This is an important question on which the Supreme Court should

rule and the resolution has nationwide impact.

2. Did Court error by holding his petition was moot?

The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected my Petition for Writ of

Habeas corpus as moot.

Mootness is flexible discretionary doctrine, and generally

requires situation arise rendering Court "unable to grant effectual

relief'. Kahn v. Griffin, 701 N.W.2d 815, 821 (Minn. 2005); State v.

Barrientos, 837 N.W.2c1 294, 304 (2013)

.

Crucial question for if case

is moot is "whether granting a present determination of the issues

will have some effect in the real world." Abduihaseeb v. Calbone, 600

Joel Marvin Munt

5.

F.3d 1301, 1303, 1311 (10th Cir. 2010)

.

As the following argument

will show., meaningful relief can still be granted.

a.

Appeal not moot when collateral consequences attach to judgment.

In i

-a McCaskill, 603 N.W.2d 326, 327 (Minn. 1999)

Adult Facilities OFFENDER HANDBOOK (2006 and 2011) page 5:

"Repeated minor violations may result in a major penalty."

Referencing DOC Policy 303.010.

DOC Policy 303.010(H) (3) (b): Hearing officer determines what

penalty is imposed on completion of hearing. Penalty based on

seriousness of violation, presence of aggravating/mitigating

factors, and offender's disciplinary record.

St. Cloud Facility Handbook page 13: "All formal discipline will

remain a part of your discipline file forever." DOC Policy

303.010 supports this assertion.

DOC Policy 303.010(K): 1) Original notice of violation and

hearing findings retained in offender's base file, unless hearing

officer dismisses all charges (in which case neither notice or

findings are placed in base - file). Copies must be retained in

offender's discipline unit file whether charges are dismissed or

not. 2) All notices of violation and dispositions, even if

withdrawn or dismissed, are entered into correctional operations

management system (CONS) for statistical purposes.

Discipline will have collateral consequences for rest of

Petitioner's life.

Favors, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11230, 2013 WL

4052668 noted discipline was "part of Petitioner's record and could

adversely affect any future proceedings, which means that the

[discipline] could have collateral consequences for Petitioner in the

future."

"[C]ase is moot only if it is shown that there is no

possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on

basis of challenged conviction." (emphasis added) U.S. v. Walgren, 885

F.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 1989)

.

There is a "presumption of collateral

consequences" and the government has the burden of disproving this

presumption. Id. The State has made no effort to prove a lack of

collateral consequences and the policies quoted above prove beyond a

Joel Marvin Munt

6.

doubt that there are collateral consequences that will affect

Plaintiff for the rest of his life. This is not speculative, as DOC has

repeatedly engaged in retaliatory discipline against Petitioner.

Further, the direct order, which was challenged and is directly

linked to the discipline, is still active and has had an adverse

impact on Petitioner. It is not speculative.

So the case was not moot.

b.

Court can grant relief requested. Nothing prevents Court ruling

on habeas petition from 1) declare rules unconstitutional, 2) vacating

convictions, 3) expunging it, 4) vacate direct order.

Court may order expungment of DOC records in Habeas proceding.

See State ex rel. Djonne V. Schoen, 299 Minn. 131; 217 N.W.2d 508;

1974 Minn LEXIS 1425 (Minn. 1974) (Reversed discharge of writ of habeas

corpus. Remanded with instructions to enter judgment ordering DOC

afford appellant hearing on alleged work-release violations or expunge

department's records.); State v. C.A., 304 N.W.2d 353 (Minn.

1981) (Inherent judiciary authority to order expungment.)

Clearly the Court had power to grant relief.

C.

Mootness exception for issues capable of repetition but evading

review (In re Schmidt, 443 N.W.2d 824, 826 (Minn. 1989); U.S. v.

Sanchez-Gomez, 798 F.3d 1204, 1204-5, 1206 (9th Cir. 2015) does apply.

Cannot file until administrative process exhausted. As explained

previously, the DOC cannot prevent filing from SEG.

Note that infringement of personal liberty for even a short

period of time "cannot immunize constitutional deprivation" See

Pritchard v. Perry, 508 F.2d 423, 424, 425 (4th .Cir. 1975)

.

"De

minimis rule is not a limitation on right of action by individual for

Joel Marvin Munt

7.

admitted violation of constitutional rights, nor are constitutional

rights separable into redressable rights and nonredressable rights, or

major and minor unconstitutional deprivations."

Pritchard at 424,

425.

Mootness doctrine exception applies.

Mootness Doctrine Exceptions exist if : a) challenged conduct too

brief to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration and 1) if

it is reasonably likely complaining party will be subject to same

action again.

Daywitt v. State of MN, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87951

(D.Minn. 2015) (citing Smith v. Hundley, 190 F.3d 852, 855 (8th Cir.

1999); Hickman v. State of Mo, 144 F.3d 1141, 1141-2, 1143 (8th Cir.

1998) (Exception to mootness doctrine for challenged activity whose

very nature is short in duration so it could not be fully adjudicated.

"segregation w[ould] normally terminate and the inmate would be

returned to the general ... population long before a challenge to his

segregation ... c[ould] be litigated fully." at 1143 (quoting Clark v.

Brewer, 779 F.2d 226, 229 (8th Cir. 1985))); see also Roe v. Wade, 410

US 113, 125 (1973); Van Bergen v. Minnesota, 59 F.3d 1541, 1547 (8th

Cir. 1995)

.

The DOC ensures litigation cannot even be begun while in

SEG and its culture of unconstitutional conduct proves it will violate

inmate rights over and over under guise of prison discipline.

Exception to mootness doctrine applies.

If Heck applies then allowing the DCC to moot habeas relief not

only fully suspends the privilege of habeas corpus but also completely

suspends the right to petition as well. All of the rights the Supreme

Court has claimed inmates retain will be rendered- unenforceable.

Joel Marvin Munt

8.

See Atwell v. Lavan, 557 F.Supp.2d 532 (M.D.Pa. 2008) (excessive

confinement Heck barred until declared invalid)

when Plaintiff is no longer in custody.

.

Heck even applies

Parks v. Dooley, 2011 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 23189 (D.Minn. 2011) (referencing Entzi v. Redmann, 485

F.3d 988, 1003 (8th Cir. 2007)); Bronowicz v. Allegeny County, 804

F.3d 338, 345 n. 12 (3rd Cir. 2015) (Even a plaintiff who has never

been incarcerated and who has no recourse under habeas is subject to

Heck.)

State Habeas corpus is only remedy to challenge discipline,

.

which must be overturned before claims can be raised in federal

lawsuit. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 US 777 (1994)

.

Federal complaints

seeking redress for things related to prison discipline fail if they

have not first overturned conviction.

Bronowicz v. Allegeny County,

804 F.3d 338, 339,344, 344-5 (3rd Cir. 2015); Favors v. Hoover, 2014

US Dist. LEXIS 140714 (D. Minn. 2014); Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 US 74,

82 (2005); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 US 641 (1997); Portley-El v. Brill,

288 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir. 2002); Case v. Pung, 413 N.W.2d 261,262

(Minn.App.1989) (Petitioner has burden to show that he was confined in

violation of fundamental constitutional rights)

.

Many cases exist

where relief has been denied due to Heck.

f.

Relief is not moot where "the resumption of the challenged

conduct ... depend[s] solely on the defendants' capricious actions by

which they are 'free to return to [their] old ways.'" Jones v. Federal

Bureau of Prisons, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78 912 (D.Minn.) (quoting

Steele v. Van Burden Public School Dist., 845 F.2d 1492, 1494 (8th

Cir. 1988) (quoting Allen v. Likins, 517 F.2d 532, 535 (8th Cir.

1975)))

.

See also City News & Novelty, Inc. v. Waukesha, 531 US 278,

284 n.1 (2001)

Joel Marvin Munt

..

9.

g. Summary

Petition was not moot. Failure to approve this request tells DOC

and Courts that they are free to violate the rights of prisoners so

longer as they do so under the guise of prison discipline.

3. Did Court error in equating mootness with frivolousness in

this case?

Given the facts of the case, Petitioner believes it was unjust

for the district court and court of appeals to equate mootness with

frivolousness. Even if this court finds that relief is moot,

Petitioner asks this court to look at the facts of the case. The

prior case did not unequivocally say that there-is no habeas petition

possible for prison discipline. In fact, its ruling that there were

no collateral consequences when collateral consequences had not been

disputed (and thus were not even an issue argued on appeal) seemed to

imply that if he had argued policy created collateral consequences

that it would not have been considered moot by the court. Which he

has done. The facts of this case were also different. Part of the

1st case was due to the Court's finding that the discipline was

warranted (while ignoring the actual arguments made)

.

In this case

the rule definitions facially are unrelated to the behavior that

triggered the discipline. It is a case where no rational person could

believe the given behavior was covered by the rules in question.

Though similar, the two cases differ considerably. It was reasonable

for the Petitioner to not believe the court's rulings on the prior

Joel Marvin Munt

10.

petition were a bar to the current. Therefore it is unjust to label

it frivolous even if the court decides relief is moot.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

S.Ct.R. 10 states a non-exhaustive list of reasons for which review

may be granted. This list includes:

has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial

proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court,

state court of last resort decided a federal issue contrary to

another state court of last resort or a US Circuit Court,

state court decided a federal question [1] that has not been, but

should be settled by this Court, or [2] in a way that conflicts

with relevant decisions of this court.

It further states the list is "neither controlling nor fully

measur[es] the Court's discretion". I would argue that any time the

Federal Constitution has been violated this Court has a duty to see

that violation is redressed and in fact that upholding the

Constitution is the primary duty of this Court.

1. Was it error to not consider the DOC's role in filing delays

when ruling Writ of Habeas corpus moot?

The prisons of this nation contain thousands of inmates at the

mercy of corrections officials.

It is undisputed that the DOC controls whether an inmate can file

from within SEG. To let them moot habeas actions would be to render

void all of the rights this court has said inmates retain. It rewards

unconstitutional conduct by allowing them to get away with even more

unconstitutional conduct.

Failure of this Court to act leaves inmates without remedy for

unconstitutional discipline.

Important, question upon which Supreme Court should rule. See

S.Ct.R. 10(a)+(b)+(c).

Joel Marvin Munt

11.

Did Court error by holding his petition was moot?

The prisons of this nation contain thousands of inmates at the

mercy of corrections officials. Most prison discipline is too short

in nature (and. your access to the courts too impeded during it) for an

inmate to seek relief during it. It is also clear that the collateral

consequences of the discipline are far reaching and long lasting.

Clearly exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply.

Failure of this Court to act leaves inmates without remedy for

unconstitutional discipline.

Important question upon which Supreme Court should rule. See

S.Ct.R. 1O(a)+(b)+(c).

Did Court error in equating mootness with frivolousness in

this case?

The prisons of this nation contain thousands of inmates at the

mercy of corrections officials.

Labeling an action as frivolous is a very severe step.

Petitioner had no reason to believe that the present case would be

labeled as moot. It would be an injustice to label a pro se

prisoner's petition that was filed in good faith as frivolous solely

because of a determination of mootness, particularly given that the

other party was the cause of the mootness, not any lack of due

diligence on Petitioner's part.

Important question upon which Supreme Court should rule. See

S.Ct.R. 10(a).

Joel Marvin Munt

12.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Joel Marvin Munt

Date: .j (tAqcVt

Joel Marvin Munt

3 2,0 çi

13.