Schaefer v. Eischen
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:25-cv-00563
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Schaefer v. Eischen, Judge Blackwell denied Schaefer’s federal habeas petition, overruled his objection, and dismissed the matter.
Max Andrew Schaefer’s federal habeas petition and application to proceed without paying filing fees were denied, and the matter was dismissed; the respondents prevailed on those requests.
What happened
In Schaefer v. Eischen, Max Andrew Schaefer challenged the denial of his request for federal custody credits. A magistrate judge recommended denying his petition, and Schaefer objected.
Schaefer did not identify an error in the recommendation’s conclusion that he could not receive Federal Sentencing Act credits for 595 days spent in pre-sentence custody. Instead, he raised a different request for credits covering the period between sentencing and his arrival at FPC Duluth. The court said he could not raise that issue for the first time in his objection and would need to present it in a new petition.
Judge Blackwell overruled the objection, accepted the recommendation, denied the petition, denied Schaefer’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot, and dismissed the matter.
The detailed version
- Schaefer v. Eischen · No. 0:25-cv-00563
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Apr. 15, 2025
Background
Max Andrew Schaefer, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins recommended that the petition be denied. Schaefer objected to that recommendation.
Objection and Analysis
The district court reviewed the portions of the recommendation challenged by Schaefer without deferring to the magistrate judge’s conclusions. It reviewed the remaining portions for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. Because Schaefer was representing himself, the court read his objections liberally.
The court concluded that Schaefer’s objection did not identify a legal or factual error requiring rejection of the recommendation. Schaefer did not directly challenge the recommendation’s determination that he could not receive Federal Sentencing Act credits for the 595 days he spent in pre-sentence custody. Instead, he argued that he should receive credits for the period between his sentencing and his arrival at FPC Duluth. The court stated that this was not the period challenged in his original petition and that he could not raise the issue for the first time in his objection. The court stated that he must raise that issue in a new habeas petition.
Disposition
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the magistrate judge’s March 12, 2025 Report and Recommendation. The court overruled Schaefer’s objection, denied his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot, and dismissed the matter. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.