Caicedo Camacho v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:25-cv-01158
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Caicedo Camacho v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Judge Blackwell denied a detention challenge and dismissed the action without prejudice after finding no clear error.
Harold E. Caicedo Camacho's § 2241 petition was denied and his action was dismissed without prejudice; the respondents, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons and others, prevailed in this order.
What happened
Harold E. Caicedo Camacho represented himself in a petition asking for relief under a federal law governing detention. The respondents included the Federal Bureau of Prisons and others.
Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a report and recommendation. No objections were filed, so the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The opinion does not describe the underlying reasons for the recommendation.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell found no clear error, accepted the recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice. Judgment was ordered to be entered.
The detailed version
- Caicedo Camacho v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · No. 0:25-cv-01158
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- June 12, 2025
Background
Harold E. Caicedo Camacho filed, without a lawyer, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The respondents included the Federal Bureau of Prisons and others. The opinion does not provide the petition's underlying legal or factual arguments.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a report and recommendation. No party filed objections within the permitted time. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record.
Ruling
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell found no clear error. The court accepted the report and recommendation, denied Caicedo Camacho's § 2241 petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The opinion does not state the reasons the petition was denied because the report and recommendation is not included in the provided text. Judgment was ordered to be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.