Court, Explained
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Back to docket
Substantive rulingFiled Dec. 18, 2025

Torres v. United States of America

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:25-cv-02708
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasImmigrationCriminal
In one sentence

In Torres v. United States, Judge Menendez denied a federal prisoner's request for early release credits under the First Step Act because he has a final deportation order.

Who this affects

Federal prisoners who are subject to a final order of removal and seek to apply First Step Act time credits toward an earlier release date. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i), such prisoners are ineligible to use those credits for earlier release.

What happened

In Antolin Abonza Torres v. United States of America, a federal prisoner named Antolin Abonza Torres asked a court to order that he receive time credits under the First Step Act — a federal law that allows certain prisoners to earn earlier release dates by completing rehabilitation programs. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which is a legal request asking a court to order that a person's imprisonment or detention be reviewed or ended.

A magistrate judge (a lower-ranking judicial officer who assists the district court) reviewed the petition and recommended denying it. The reason: federal law specifically bars prisoners who are subject to a final order of removal — meaning immigration authorities have officially ordered them deported — from applying those time credits toward an earlier release date. Mr. Torres has such a final removal order, making him ineligible for this benefit under 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i). Mr. Torres did not file any objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation by the deadline.

Judge Katherine Menendez of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota reviewed the recommendation and found no error in it. Judge Menendez accepted the recommendation, denied Mr. Torres's petition, and dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.

The detailed version

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

Case
Torres v. United States of America · No. 0:25-cv-02708
Judge
Katherine Menendez
Date
Dec. 18, 2025

Background

Petitioner Antolin Abonza Torres filed an Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the federal statute allowing a person in custody to challenge the legality of that custody in federal court. Mr. Torres sought to have time credits earned under the First Step Act (FSA) applied toward an earlier release date. The First Step Act, codified in part at 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4), allows eligible federal prisoners to earn credits toward early release or prerelease custody by completing approved programming.

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on October 9, 2025, recommending that the petition be denied. The basis for the recommendation was 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i), which expressly makes prisoners who are subject to a final order of removal ineligible to apply FSA time credits to obtain an earlier release date. The R&R concluded that Mr. Torres, being under such a final order of removal, is categorically ineligible for this benefit.

No Objections Filed

The deadline for Mr. Torres to object to the R&R was October 23, 2025 — fourteen days after issuance, consistent with District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). Mr. Torres did not submit any objections. Under applicable precedent, when no objections are filed, the district court reviews a magistrate judge's R&R only for clear error. The court cited Nur v. Olmsted County, 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021), and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996).

Ruling

Judge Menendez found no clear error in the R&R after reviewing both the recommendation and the case record. The court accepted the R&R, denied Mr. Torres's Amended Petition, and dismissed the matter with prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.