Smith v. Eischen

Background

Darrell D. Smith filed a petition seeking habeas relief against B. Eischen, identified in the caption as the warden. Smith represented himself. The defendant was represented by attorneys from the United States Attorney’s Office.

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing Smith’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. Smith objected to that recommendation. Smith also filed three motions: one concerning an order to show cause about jurisdiction, one seeking to present updated information, and one seeking to add briefing or an attachment to his objection.

Court’s analysis

The district court conducted an independent review of the recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The court concluded that nothing in Smith’s additional filings affected its jurisdiction analysis.

The court explained that dismissing the habeas petition did not prevent Smith from pursuing his claims through an appropriate procedural vehicle, such as a civil action that was not a habeas petition. The court stated that Smith could pursue such a civil action only after exhausting his administrative remedies and that he would be responsible for paying the filing fee. The court did not decide whether Smith’s underlying claims would succeed; it stated that another court with jurisdiction could rule on their merits.

Disposition

The court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed Smith’s petition for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice. It denied Smith’s motion for leave to add to the order to show cause, his motion for leave to present updated information, and his motion for leave to append an attachment to his objection. Judgment was ordered to be entered.

The order’s opening discussion says Smith objected to the recommendation, but the formal order says that the court overruled the defendant’s objection. The opinion does not explain this discrepancy.