Stevenson v. Eischen
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-01308
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Stevenson v. Eischen, Judge Tostrud dismissed Michael Stevenson's petition for release from custody as moot and without prejudice.
People in federal or state custody who have filed, or are considering filing, a habeas corpus petition challenging their confinement, particularly where circumstances may change after filing in a way that could moot their claim.
What happened
In Stevenson v. Eischen (File No. 25-cv-1308), Michael Stevenson, a prisoner, filed a petition asking a federal court to order his release or other relief from custody — a legal tool known as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which allows people held by the government to challenge the legality of their confinement.
Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard issued a Report and Recommendation on February 25, 2026, concluding that the petition should be denied as moot — meaning that something changed after the case was filed that eliminated the legal controversy the petition was based on, leaving the court with nothing to decide. No party objected to that recommendation, so the district court reviewed it only for obvious mistakes.
Finding no clear error in Magistrate Judge Bullard's analysis, Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied the petition as moot, and dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning Stevenson is not barred from raising a future claim if the circumstances allow it.
The detailed version
- Stevenson v. Eischen · No. 0:25-cv-01308
- Eric Tostrud
- Mar. 24, 2026
Background
Petitioner Michael Stevenson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal mechanism by which a person in government custody challenges the lawfulness of that custody — against B. Eischen, identified as the Warden and thus the official responsible for his confinement. The case was assigned to United States District Judge Eric C. Tostrud and referred to Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard for initial review.
Report and Recommendation
On February 25, 2026, Magistrate Judge Bullard issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20) concluding that the petition should be denied as moot and the action dismissed without prejudice. The opinion does not describe the underlying facts of the petition or explain in detail what intervening event rendered the petition moot; those details appear to be contained in the Report and Recommendation itself, which is not reproduced here.
No Objections Filed
Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation within the applicable period. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996)), when no party objects, the district court reviews the magistrate judge's recommendation only for clear error — a more deferential standard than de novo (independent) review.
Ruling
Judge Tostrud found no clear error in Magistrate Judge Bullard's analysis and accepted the Report and Recommendation in full. The court: 1. Accepted the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20); 2. Denied Stevenson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) as moot; and 3. Dismissed the action without prejudice.
A dismissal without prejudice means the dismissal does not bar Stevenson from filing a new petition if a cognizable claim arises in the future. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Notes on Opinion Scope
This order is limited to adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation. The substantive reasoning for the mootness finding — including what changed to moot the petition — is contained in the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20), which is not part of the opinion text provided here.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.