Moreno Casquete v. United States
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:24-cv-02277
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Moreno Casquete v. United States, Judge Schiltz denied a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a request for an evidentiary hearing.
Harinson Moreno Casquete, whose § 2241 petition and request for an evidentiary hearing were denied; the United States of America was named as respondent in the caption.
What happened
In Moreno Casquete v. United States, Harinson Moreno Casquete filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and requested an evidentiary hearing.
The order relied on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright on April 10, 2025. The order states that no objections were filed.
Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz denied the § 2241 petition and denied the request for an evidentiary hearing. The supplied order does not explain the underlying merits of the petition.
The detailed version
- Moreno Casquete v. United States · No. 0:24-cv-02277
- Patrick Schiltz
- May 12, 2025
Background
Harinson Moreno Casquete filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and requested an evidentiary hearing. The order states that United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a Recommendation on April 10, 2025. No objections were filed.
Rulings
The court ordered that:
- Moreno Casquete’s § 2241 petition was denied. - His request for an evidentiary hearing was denied.
The order does not state the underlying facts or explain the merits analysis supporting those rulings. A footnote discusses the government’s argument that the warden at FMC-Rochester, rather than the United States of America, was the proper respondent in the habeas case. The supplied text of that footnote ends before showing any completed ruling on that issue.
Disposition
Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz ordered judgment to be entered accordingly. The order denied both the petition and the evidentiary-hearing request; it does not state that either ruling was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.