Loza v. Waseca
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-04746
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Loza v. FCI Waseca, Judge Menendez dismissed Amy Loza's petition challenging prison conditions without prejudice for failing to pay the filing fee or apply to proceed without payment.
People incarcerated in federal facilities who file habeas petitions or other civil actions in federal court and must comply with filing fee requirements or risk dismissal for failure to prosecute.
What happened
In Loza v. FCI Waseca (No. 25-cv-4746), Amy Loza, a person incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Waseca, filed a petition asking the court to review her claim that conditions at that facility violated her constitutional rights. When she filed the petition on December 22, 2025, the court clerk notified her that she had 15 days to either pay the filing fee or apply to have the fee waived. She did neither.
Because Ms. Loza did not respond to the clerk's notice, U.S. Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation on February 6, 2026, recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice under the federal rule allowing courts to dismiss cases when a party fails to move them forward. Ms. Loza did not file any objections to that recommendation.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it in full. The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Ms. Loza is not barred by this ruling from refiling if she addresses the filing fee requirement.
The detailed version
- Loza v. Waseca · No. 0:25-cv-04746
- Katherine Menendez
- Mar. 31, 2026
Background
Petitioner Amy Loza, who is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Waseca, Minnesota, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal request asking a court to examine the lawfulness of a person's confinement or conditions of confinement — on December 22, 2025. She alleged that conditions at FCI Waseca violated her constitutional rights.
Procedural History
On the same day the petition was filed, the Clerk of Court sent Ms. Loza a letter advising her that she was required, within 15 days, to either (1) pay the applicable filing fee, or (2) submit an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (commonly known as a fee-waiver application). The clerk's letter warned that failure to comply could result in summary dismissal without prejudice. Ms. Loza did not submit the filing fee or a fee-waiver application.
Well after the 15-day deadline passed, United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on February 6, 2026. The R&R recommended dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which authorizes a court to dismiss an action when the plaintiff fails to prosecute — that is, fails to take the steps needed to move the case forward. No objections to the R&R were filed by Ms. Loza or any other party.
Legal Standard
When no party objects to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court reviews it only for clear error. Judge Menendez applied this standard, citing Nur v. Olmsted County, 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021), and the Eighth Circuit's decision in Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996).
Ruling
Judge Menendez found no clear error in Magistrate Judge Docherty's R&R and adopted it in full. The court ordered:
1. The R&R (Dkt. No. 4) is accepted. 2. The matter is dismissed without prejudice.
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, this ruling does not permanently bar Ms. Loza from pursuing her claims — she retains the ability to refile, provided she addresses the fee or fee-waiver requirement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.