Background
Scott Keith Ernst, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on December 12, 2025. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(17). On March 3, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge dismissed the original petition because it was time-barred under AEDPA's one-year limitations period to the extent it challenged Ernst's 2008 state conviction and sentence, and because the claims appeared to concern solely state sentencing law and therefore were not cognizable in the federal habeas action. Ernst received leave to amend and filed the operative first amended petition on April 1, 2026.
On September 8, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of the amended petition without leave to amend. The magistrate judge concluded that the claims challenged only the state judgment of conviction and sentence that became final in 2008 and that the amended petition was clearly time-barred by AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations. The findings and recommendations were served on Ernst with notice that objections were due within fourteen days after service, and Ernst filed objections on September 23, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
District Judge Dale A. Drozd conducted de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), reviewed the entire file, and concluded that the findings and recommendations were supported by the record and proper analysis. The court described Ernst's objections as somewhat difficult to decipher and as referring to an unsupported claim of actual innocence, claimed changes in state law since his conviction, and various purported trial errors. It found nothing in those objections that supplied a legitimate and supported basis to reject the findings and recommendations.
The court adopted the September 8, 2026 findings and recommendations in full and dismissed the amended petition without leave to amend as time-barred. It also declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Applying 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), and Slack v. McDaniel, the court explained that a certificate on a procedural dismissal requires a showing that reasonable jurists could debate both the procedural ruling and whether the petition states a valid constitutional claim. It concluded that reasonable jurists would not find the dismissal debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge's September 8, 2026 findings and recommendations in full after de novo review.
- Ernst's amended § 2254 petition was dismissed without leave to amend because it was time-barred under AEDPA's one-year limitations period.
- The objections did not provide a legitimate and supported basis for rejecting the recommendation, despite referencing actual innocence, changes in state law, and alleged trial errors.
- The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the procedural dismissal debatable or deserving of further proceedings.
- The Clerk of the Court was directed to close the case.
Why It Matters
The order finalizes the district court's disposition of the amended habeas petition rather than merely recommending dismissal. It leaves the time-bar ruling as the basis for dismissal and denies further amendment, while also addressing appellate review by refusing a certificate of appealability.
The decision applies the two-part Slack standard for procedural dismissals and makes clear that Ernst's objections did not alter the court's assessment of the record or the limitations analysis. The ruling also confirms that a pro se petitioner's unsupported assertions of actual innocence and alleged trial errors do not overcome a clear AEDPA time bar.