🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

Daneta L. Wollmann

United States District Court for the District of South Dakota magistrate Retired 2026 · served 2018–2026 10 signed orders read

Judge Wollmann no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Wollmann decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In suppression rulings Wollmann reaches the good-faith exception even after finding a warrant particularity defect: where officers carried the warrant/affidavit/attachment to the search and relied on them reasonably, suppression is not recommended because exclusion would not appreciably deter misconduct.

“the court overrules Jesse's objection that the search team's actions were not objectively reasonable and adopts Magistrate Judge Wollmann's conclusion that the good-faith exception applies.”

Across a sample of seven suppression motions she has recommended denial in every one, most often crediting the arresting officer's testimony over a defendant's account and finding independent grounds for a stop or search (an observed traffic violation, the odor of marijuana, or a broader drug investigation) even where a defendant raises a credibility or particularity challenge.

“The court concurs in the magistrate judge's credibility determinations.”

Procedural preferences

On prisoner habeas, Wollmann enforces the gatekeeping rules strictly: a second/successive 2254 petition is recommended for dismissal without prejudice unless the petitioner first obtains Eighth Circuit authorization under 2244(b)(3)(A).

“The magistrate judge recommended the court dismiss this petition without prejudice because Mr. Gard failed to obtain permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as required by 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A).”

On 2255 timeliness Wollmann applies equitable tolling narrowly: a disruption (e.g. a hurricane) affecting only the tail of the one-year period, with no diligence over the preceding months, does not toll the limitations period.

“The Magistrate Judge explains that the hurricane may have impeded LeBeau's ability to file his 2255 motion in 'the last 42 days of the filing time period; however, he offers no explanation for the preceding 323 days.'”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Gard v. Fluke
5:18-cv-05040-JLV · 2019-07-09
Motions to dismiss (respondent) Granted

“the report and recommendation (Docket 11) is adopted as supplemented by this order. ... respondents' motion to dismiss the petition (Docket 8) is granted.”

LeBeau v. United States
5:19-cv-05011-KES · 2022-03-21
Motions to dismiss (respondent) Granted

“respondent's motion to dismiss (Docket 9) is granted. LeBeau's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Docket 1) is dismissed with prejudice. ... the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (Docket 29) is adopted in full.”

United States v. Sierra
5:19-cr-50110-KES · 2022-07-21
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“the report and recommendation (Docket 264) denying Jesse Sierra and Dustin Sierra's motions to suppress is adopted as modified by this opinion. The motion to suppress (Docket 228) is denied.”

United States v. Kenefick and Hill
5:19-cr-50058-KES · 2020-04-20
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“The court overrules defendants' objections and adopts the R&R as modified by this order. The court denies defendants' suppression motions in full.”

United States v. Milk
5:16-cr-50118-JLV · 2018-01-29
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (Docket 57) is adopted in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion to suppress (Docket 45) is denied.”

United States v. Bettelyoun
5:18-cr-50114-KES · 2021-12-03
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“the report and recommendation (Docket 97) is adopted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion to suppress (Docket 75) is denied.”

United States v. Mendez
5:21-cr-50024-JLV · 2021-11-19
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the Motion to Suppress (Doc. 68) be denied.”

United States v. Jesse Sierra and Dustin Sierra
5:19-cr-50110-KES · 2020-05-05
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“the magistrate judge's report and recommendation concerning defendant Dustin Sierra's suppression motion (Docket 90) is adopted as modified by this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Dustin Sierra's motion to suppress (Docket 66) is denied.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“the magistrate judge's report and recommendation concerning the motions to dismiss (Docket 91) is adopted as modified by this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motions to dismiss (Dockets 71 & 73) are denied.”

Motion to sever (defendant) Denied

“the magistrate judge's order denying severance (Docket 92) is affirmed as modified by this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motions to sever (Dockets 69, 73 & 74) are denied.”

United States v. Garcia
5:16-cr-50097-JLV · 2018-09-04
Motion for competency evaluation (court) Granted

“the report and recommendation (Docket 53) is adopted.”

Motion to revoke pretrial release (government) Denied

“Following the presentation of evidence, the magistrate judge denied the government's motion to revoke the defendant's pretrial release.”

United States v. Faulkner
5:17-cr-50144-JLV · 2018-12-03
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“the report and recommendation (Docket 77) is adopted as modified by this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion to suppress (Docket 38) is denied.”

A historical record

Judge Wollmann no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.