Sharma v. Eischen
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:24-cv-02619
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Sharma v. Eischen, Judge Blackwell denied Sharma’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, denied two motions, and dismissed the matter without prejudice.
Aditya Raj Sharma’s amended § 2241 petition and his motions for an expedited hearing and for sanctions and criminal charges were denied; the matter was dismissed without prejudice. Billy Eischen was the named respondent.
What happened
In Sharma v. Eischen, Aditya Raj Sharma filed an amended petition asking for relief under a federal law that allows certain people in custody to challenge their detention. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claims.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. No one objected, so the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. The court also considered Sharma’s motions for an expedited hearing and for sanctions and criminal charges.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the recommendation in part as to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, denied the amended petition for lack of jurisdiction, denied both motions, and dismissed the matter without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Sharma v. Eischen · No. 0:24-cv-02619
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Sept. 13, 2024
Background
Aditya Raj Sharma filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying allegations or the relief Sharma sought. Sharma also filed a motion for an expedited hearing and a motion for sanctions and criminal charges.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation on August 28, 2024. The recommendation included dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, meaning the court concluded it did not have authority to decide the petition. No objections were filed within the permitted time. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Ruling
The court accepted the Report and Recommendation in part, to the extent it recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. It denied Sharma’s amended § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. It separately denied the motion for an expedited hearing and the motion for sanctions and criminal charges. The court dismissed the matter without prejudice and directed that judgment be entered. Because the petition was denied for lack of jurisdiction, the opinion does not decide the petition’s underlying merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.