Horton v. Eischen
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-02238
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Horton v. Eischen, Judge Bryan dismissed Horton's federal prison-release petition without prejudice because he had not first used the federal prison's internal complaint process.
Federal prisoners who have not yet gone through the Bureau of Prisons' internal administrative complaint process before filing a habeas corpus petition in federal court. Such petitioners face dismissal without prejudice and must complete the internal process before a court will hear their claims.
What happened
In Horton v. Eischen (No. 25-cv-2238), federal prisoner Donovan Orville Horton filed a petition asking a court to order his release or other relief from custody at FPC Duluth, a federal prison camp. Before a federal court can consider such a petition, the prisoner generally must first try to resolve the issue by going through the federal Bureau of Prisons' internal grievance and administrative appeal process — a requirement called exhaustion of administrative remedies. The record showed Horton had not done so.
A Magistrate Judge (a judicial officer who assists the district court judge) reviewed the petition and issued a Report and Recommendation on July 15, 2025, advising that the petition be dismissed without prejudice — meaning Horton could refile after completing the required administrative process. Neither Horton nor the government objected to that recommendation, so the district court reviewed it only for obvious mistakes.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan found no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis and adopted the recommendation in full. Judge Bryan dismissed the petition without prejudice and also denied Horton's request to proceed without paying court fees as moot, because the case was being closed. Horton retains the option to refile if he completes the prison's internal remedy process.
The detailed version
- Horton v. Eischen · No. 0:25-cv-02238
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Sept. 15, 2025
Background
Petitioner Donovan Orville Horton, a prisoner housed at FPC Duluth (a federal prison camp), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal action asking a federal court to review the lawfulness of his confinement or the conditions of it. The respondent is B. Eischen, identified as a representative of FPC Duluth.
Horton also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (without prepaying the court filing fee, based on claimed inability to pay).
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on July 15, 2025, recommending that the petition be dismissed without prejudice. The basis was Horton's failure to exhaust administrative remedies — that is, his failure to first seek relief through the Bureau of Prisons' internal grievance and administrative appeal system before turning to the federal courts. The R&R cited Mathena v. United States, 577 F.3d 943, 946 (8th Cir. 2009) as legal support for this requirement.
Standard of Review
Because no party objected to the R&R within the time allowed, Judge Bryan reviewed it only for clear error, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Clear error is a deferential standard — the court will adopt the recommendation unless it finds an obvious mistake.
The Court's Ruling
Judge Bryan found no clear error and adopted the R&R in its entirety. The court ordered:
- The R&R is adopted.
- The petition is dismissed without prejudice. This means the dismissal does not bar Horton from refiling once he has completed the required administrative remedy process.
- The in forma pauperis application is denied as moot, because the dismissal of the underlying petition renders the fee-waiver request unnecessary.
Effect on Petitioner
A dismissal without prejudice on exhaustion grounds leaves open the possibility that Horton may refile his habeas petition after fully exhausting available administrative remedies through the Bureau of Prisons. The opinion does not address the underlying merits of whatever claim Horton raised in his petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.