Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled July 8, 2025

Badillo v. Eischen

Judge
Jerry Blackwell
Docket
0:25-cv-00360
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Badillo v. Eischen, Judge Blackwell accepted the recommendation, denied Badillo’s habeas petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice.

Who this affects

Arnaldo Badillo, the petitioner, and the respondent identified in the caption as B. Eischen, FPC Duluth.

What happened

Badillo v. Eischen involved Arnaldo Badillo’s petition under federal law seeking a court order concerning his detention. The order does not explain the underlying basis for the petition or the recommendation.

Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a recommendation on May 27, 2025. No timely objections were filed, so the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the recommendation, denied Badillo’s petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The order does not state why the petition was denied.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Badillo v. Eischen · No. 0:25-cv-00360
Judge
Jerry W. Blackwell
Date
July 8, 2025

Background

Arnaldo Badillo filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The opinion does not describe the specific claim or the relief Badillo sought.

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation on May 27, 2025. No objections were filed within the permitted time. When no timely objections are filed, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error. Judge Blackwell reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Blackwell accepted the Report and Recommendation. The court denied Badillo’s § 2241 petition and dismissed the action without prejudice. The opinion does not state the reason for the denial or dismissal. “Without prejudice” means the order itself does not bar a later filing, although the opinion does not discuss whether any other limitation would apply.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.