Aviles Mendoza v. United States
- Nancy Brasel
- 0:25-cv-01001
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Aviles Mendoza v. United States, Judge Brasel accepted the recommendation, denied the Section 2241 petition, dismissed the action, and denied the fee-prepayment application.
Diomedez Daniel Aviles Mendoza’s § 2241 petition was denied, the action was dismissed, and his application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied. The United States was the respondent.
What happened
In Diomedez Daniel Aviles Mendoza v. United States, the court considered a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation concerning Mendoza’s petition under federal law allowing challenges to detention.
No party objected to the report. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.
Judge Nancy E. Brasel accepted the report and recommendation, denied Mendoza’s petition, dismissed the action, and denied his application to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Aviles Mendoza v. United States · No. 0:25-cv-01001
- Nancy Brasel
- June 13, 2025
Background
The court received a May 12, 2025 report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright. The opinion does not describe the underlying facts or the reasoning in that report.
Review of the Recommendation
No party objected to the report and recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court found no clear error and accepted the report and recommendation.
Ruling
The court denied Diomedez Daniel Aviles Mendoza’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, dismissed the action, and denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying filing fees. The order does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court adopted the report and recommendation after clear-error review without providing a merits analysis of the habeas petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.