Garibay v. Eischen

Background

Victor Leonardo Garibay filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court request challenging the legality or execution of detention. He alleged that the Federal Bureau of Prisons had incorrectly calculated the time credits he was entitled to receive under the First Step Act of 2018.

Garibay admitted that he had begun, but had not completed, the administrative process for reviewing his claims. On July 17, 2025, the court ordered him to show why the petition should not be denied without prejudice because he had not exhausted administrative remedies. The order gave him 28 days to respond and warned that, if he did not respond, the court would recommend denying the petition without prejudice and dismissing the matter.

Analysis

The court explained that failing to exhaust administrative remedies is not a jurisdictional barrier to habeas relief. It nevertheless found no apparent reason to excuse exhaustion. The court noted that resolving the claims through the administrative process could eliminate the need for court proceedings and could clarify factual issues for any later judicial review.

Garibay did not respond in any way before the 28-day deadline expired. The court also noted that much of his petition used template language appearing in petitions filed by several dozen other petitioners, making it difficult to determine from the petition alone how much of its information was accurate.

Recommendation and Procedure

Elizabeth Cowan Wright, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that Garibay’s petition be denied without prejudice and that the matter be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The report and recommendation stated that it was not an order or judgment of the District Court and therefore was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. It advised that specific written objections could be filed within 14 days after service, with responses to objections due within the period stated in the notice.