Pineda v. Warden, FPC Alderson
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-02325
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Pineda v. Warden, FPC Alderson, Judge Menendez denied Jaime M. Pineda’s petition and dismissed this duplicative case without prejudice.
Jaime M. Pineda, whose federal custody petition was denied and whose duplicative action was dismissed without prejudice; the Warden, FPC Alderson, was the named defendant.
What happened
In Pineda v. Warden, FPC Alderson, Jaime M. Pineda filed a petition asking for release or other relief under a federal law allowing challenges to federal custody. A magistrate judge concluded that the case duplicated another action Pineda had already filed.
No one filed objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation within the allowed time. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez accepted the recommendation, denied Pineda’s petition, and dismissed this case without prejudice because it duplicated the pending related action. The court directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Pineda v. Warden, FPC Alderson · No. 0:25-cv-02325
- Katherine Menendez
- July 16, 2025
Background
Jaime M. Pineda filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The opinion does not describe the underlying custody claim or the relief Pineda sought in detail.
United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation on June 10, 2025. He concluded that this action duplicated another case Pineda had previously filed and recommended denying the petition and dismissing this case without prejudice.
Review of the Recommendation
Pineda did not object to the Report and Recommendation within the permitted time. When no specific objections are filed, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error. The court reviewed the recommendation and the record and found no error in the magistrate judge’s conclusion.
Ruling
Judge Katherine M. Menendez accepted the Report and Recommendation. The court denied Pineda’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and dismissed this action without prejudice as duplicative of the pending related action. The court also directed that judgment be entered.
Classification
This is a procedural order. The court dismissed the petition and case because the action was duplicative and did not decide the underlying habeas claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.