Luis Munoz Menco v. United States of America
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-04238
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Munoz Menco v. United States, Judge Tostrud dismissed Luis Munoz Menco's petition for release from custody without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Individuals who have filed or are considering filing a federal habeas corpus petition challenging the lawfulness of their custody, particularly those who may fail to take required procedural steps to advance their case after filing.
What happened
In Munoz Menco v. United States of America (File No. 25-cv-4238), Luis Munoz Menco filed a petition asking a federal court to review the lawfulness of his custody — a legal tool known as a writ of habeas corpus. The case was first reviewed by Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, who issued a Report and Recommendation on December 4, 2025, recommending that the petition be dismissed because Munoz Menco failed to prosecute — meaning he did not take the steps required to move his case forward.
Because no party objected to Magistrate Judge Brisbois's Report and Recommendation, the case moved to District Judge Eric C. Tostrud for review under a more limited standard — checking only for clear error rather than conducting a full review. Judge Tostrud found no clear error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis.
Judge Tostrud accepted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed Munoz Menco's petition without prejudice for failure to prosecute. A dismissal without prejudice means Munoz Menco is not permanently barred from filing again, though the opinion does not specify the circumstances under which refiling would be permitted.
The detailed version
- Luis Munoz Menco v. United States of America · No. 0:25-cv-04238
- Eric Tostrud
- Dec. 30, 2025
Background
Luis Munoz Menco filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal mechanism by which a person in custody asks a federal court to examine whether that custody is lawful — against the United States of America in the District of Minnesota.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on December 4, 2025, recommending dismissal of the petition. The basis for the recommended dismissal was failure to prosecute, meaning Munoz Menco did not take the required procedural steps to advance his case. No party filed objections to the R&R.
Standard of Review
Because no objections were filed, Judge Tostrud reviewed the R&R under the clear error standard, as governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and the Eighth Circuit's decision in Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Under this deferential standard, the district court looks only for plain mistakes rather than reconsidering the entire matter from scratch.
Ruling
Judge Tostrud found no clear error in the R&R and accepted it in full. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly. A dismissal without prejudice, as the court explicitly stated, does not foreclose the possibility of future refiling, though the opinion does not address the conditions or timing of any such refiling.
What This Means
The case was resolved on procedural grounds — the petitioner's failure to move his case forward — without any ruling on the underlying merits of his custody claim.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.