Gallegos v. Eischen
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-01656
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Gallegos v. Eischen, Judge Menendez denied Gallegos’s petition, accepted the recommendation, and dismissed the case with prejudice over First Step Act time credits.
Miguel Angel Gallegos, Sr.; the order denied his petition and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The order also upheld the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ refusal to award First Step Act time credits for his aggregate sentence.
What happened
Gallegos v. Eischen concerned Miguel Angel Gallegos, Sr.’s claim that the Federal Bureau of Prisons wrongly refused to award him time credits under the First Step Act of 2018. He argued that the credits should be unavailable only for the part of his sentence connected to his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), while remaining available for his separate conviction.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition and dismissing the case. The recommendation concluded that the two sentences were treated as one combined sentence and that the entire sentence was ineligible for the credits because one conviction was excluded. Although Gallegos appears to have received the recommendation, he filed no objections within the permitted time.
Judge Katherine Menendez found no clear error, accepted the recommendation in full, denied Gallegos’s petition, and dismissed the matter with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Gallegos v. Eischen · No. 0:25-cv-01656
- Katherine Menendez
- June 12, 2025
Background
Miguel Angel Gallegos, Sr. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court petition challenging the legality of his custody or the calculation of his sentence. He asserted that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) wrongfully failed to award him time credits earned under the First Step Act of 2018.
Gallegos argued that only his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) was expressly excluded from receiving First Step Act time credits. He therefore contended that the exclusion should apply only to the portion of his sentence attributable to that conviction, while the sentence for his separate conviction should remain eligible for credits.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins recommended denying the petition and dismissing the matter. The recommendation concluded that, under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(c), Gallegos’s two sentences were treated as one aggregate sentence. Because one of the convictions was ineligible for the time credits, the recommendation concluded that the entire sentence was ineligible.
The opinion states that Gallegos appeared to have received the Report and Recommendation but filed no objections within the permitted time. Without specific objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of the disputed issues.
Ruling
The court found no error—clear or otherwise—in the magistrate judge’s analysis and accepted the recommendations in full. The court ordered that:
- Magistrate Judge Elkins’s Report and Recommendation dated May 9, 2025, was accepted.
- Gallegos’s petition was denied.
- The matter was dismissed with prejudice.
A dismissal with prejudice bars refiling the same matter. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.