Monville v. Eischen
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:24-cv-04237
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Monville v. Eischen, Judge Bryan adopted the recommendation, denied the habeas petition as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Jesse James Monville’s habeas action was denied as moot and dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; B. Eischen was the respondent.
What happened
In Monville v. Eischen, Jesse James Monville filed a petition asking for habeas relief, but the opinion does not explain the petition’s underlying allegations or why it became moot.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition as moot and dismissing the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Neither party objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the recommendation, denied the petition as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Monville v. Eischen · No. 0:24-cv-04237
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- May 19, 2025
Background
Jesse James Monville, identified as the petitioner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against B. Eischen, identified as the FPC-Duluth Warden. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claim or explain why it became moot.
Recommendation and review
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation dated May 1, 2025. It recommended that the court deny Monville’s habeas petition as moot and dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked legal authority to decide the case. Neither party filed an objection by the deadline. Because there were no timely objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, and found none.
Ruling
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus as moot and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion states that the dismissal was without prejudice, so it did not bar refiling on that basis. The court did not reach the merits of the habeas claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.