Soto v. Eischen
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-01375
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Soto v. Eischen, Judge Bryan denied Soto’s habeas petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissed the action without prejudice.
Hector Fabian Soto’s petition was denied, his application to proceed without paying court fees was denied, and the action was dismissed without prejudice. The respondents were B. Eischen, FPC Duluth, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
What happened
In Soto v. Eischen, Hector Fabian Soto filed a petition asking for a court order concerning his detention. Soto represented himself, and the respondents were B. Eischen, FPC Duluth, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition without prejudice because Soto had not exhausted administrative remedies. Neither side objected to that recommendation, so the court reviewed it for clear error.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, denied the petition, denied Soto’s application to proceed without paying court fees, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Soto v. Eischen · No. 0:25-cv-01375
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- July 21, 2025
Background
Hector Fabian Soto filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against B. Eischen, FPC Duluth, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Soto represented himself. The opinion does not describe the underlying claim beyond the exhaustion issue addressed in the order.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Soto’s petition be denied without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Neither party filed an objection, and the deadline for doing so had passed.
Court’s Review and Ruling
Because there were no timely objections, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error. Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan found no clear error and adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court denied the petition, denied Soto’s application to proceed without paying court fees, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The order did not reach the underlying merits of Soto’s petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.