Luis M. v. United States of America
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-04238
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Luis M. v. United States, Magistrate Judge Brisbois recommends dismissing without prejudice a petition for a court-ordered release because the petitioner never paid the filing fee or applied for fee waiver.
Individuals held in immigration detention who attempt to file federal habeas corpus petitions without paying the filing fee or obtaining a fee waiver, and those who use unlicensed 'immigration assistants' to prepare or file federal court documents on their behalf.
What happened
In Luis M. v. United States of America (Case No. 25-cv-4238), a person identified as Luis M. filed a petition asking a federal court to order his release — a type of legal challenge called a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. After the petition was filed, the court clerk told Luis M. he had 15 days to either pay the filing fee or apply to have that fee waived because he could not afford it, warning him the case could be dismissed if he did neither.
Luis M. did not pay the filing fee or apply for a fee waiver by the deadline. The court also noted a separate problem: the petition was filed not by Luis M. himself, but by someone calling themselves an 'Immigration Assistant,' who is not licensed to practice law in this district. To proceed, Luis M. would have needed to hire a licensed attorney or represent himself — and if representing himself, he would have been required to personally sign all documents he submitted to the court.
Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois is recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice — meaning Luis M. is not permanently barred from refiling — under the rule that allows courts to dismiss cases when a party fails to move the case forward. This is a recommendation, not a final order; Luis M. has 14 days after receiving this recommendation to file written objections, and the assigned district court judge will have the final say.
The detailed version
- Luis M. v. United States of America · No. 0:25-cv-04238
- Eric Tostrud
- Dec. 4, 2025
Background
Petitioner Luis M. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal action used to challenge the lawfulness of a person's detention and seek release — in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The petition was filed on his behalf by an "Immigration Assistant," not by a licensed attorney or by Luis M. himself.
Procedural History
On November 6, 2025, the Clerk of Court sent Luis M. a letter directing him to pay the required filing fee or to apply for in forma pauperis (IFP) status — a court designation that waives or reduces filing fees for people who cannot afford them — within 15 days. The letter warned that failure to do either could result in dismissal without prejudice. The deadline passed without Luis M. paying the fee or submitting an IFP application.
Grounds for the Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Brisbois recommends dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which authorizes a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or fails to comply with court orders. The court cited Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 F. App'x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) as authority for this discretionary power.
Unauthorized Practice of Law Issue
The court separately observed that the habeas petition was signed and submitted by an "Immigration Assistant" rather than by Luis M. himself or a licensed attorney. The court noted that this individual is not authorized to practice law in the District of Minnesota. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), every document submitted to the court must be signed either by the party's attorney or, if the party is unrepresented, by the party personally. Because the failure to prosecute renders the signing deficiency moot in the current case, the court did not act on it — but the court cautioned Luis M. that if he files future federal court actions, he must personally sign all documents unless he is represented by licensed counsel.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Brisbois recommends that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Procedural Next Steps
This is a Report and Recommendation, not a final order. It is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), any party may file specific written objections within 14 days of being served with this recommendation. Responses to objections may be filed within 14 days thereafter. The assigned district court judge (Judge ECT) will review the recommendation and any objections before issuing a final ruling.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.