Mendoza v. Eischen
Mendoza v. Eischen
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Rafael Mendoza, Case No. 25-CV-02058 (JMB/DTS) Petitioner,
ORDER v. B. Eischen; FPC Duluth; and FBOP, Respondents.
Rafael Mendoza, Oklahoma City, OK, self-represented.
Ana H. Voss and Lucas B. Draisey, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondents B. Eischen, FPC Duluth, and FBOP.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz dated July 14, 2025. (Doc. No. 7.) The R&R recommends that Petitioner Rafael Mendoza’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) be denied without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and that Mendoza’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs (Doc. No. 5) be denied. (See Doc. No. 7.) Neither party has objected to the R&R, and the time to do so has now passed. See D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1).
In the absence of timely objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
Finding no clear error, and based upon all the files, records, and proceedings in the above- captioned matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. No. 7) is ADOPTED.
2. Petitioner Rafael Mendoza’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3. Mendoza’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED.
4. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: August 14, 2025 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan United States District Court
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Rafael Mendoza, Case No. 25-CV-02058 (JMB/DTS) Petitioner,
ORDER v. B. Eischen; FPC Duluth; and FBOP, Respondents.
Rafael Mendoza, Oklahoma City, OK, self-represented.
Ana H. Voss and Lucas B. Draisey, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondents B. Eischen, FPC Duluth, and FBOP.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz dated July 14, 2025. (Doc. No. 7.) The R&R recommends that Petitioner Rafael Mendoza’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) be denied without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and that Mendoza’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs (Doc. No. 5) be denied. (See Doc. No. 7.) Neither party has objected to the R&R, and the time to do so has now passed. See D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(1).
In the absence of timely objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
Finding no clear error, and based upon all the files, records, and proceedings in the above- captioned matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. No. 7) is ADOPTED.
2. Petitioner Rafael Mendoza’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3. Mendoza’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED.
4. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: August 14, 2025 /s/ Jeffrey M. Bryan Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan United States District Court
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.