Thompson v. Fildes

Background

Joshua James Thompson filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure used to challenge the legality of custody, along with an application to proceed without paying filing fees. Thompson is confined at the Clay County Correctional Facility in Moorhead, Minnesota, and is awaiting trial in a Minnesota state prosecution charging first-degree driving while impaired. The state case was set for trial in May 2026.

Thompson’s petition challenged a June 2023 traffic stop and arrest by Deputy Michael Fildes. It alleged an unlawful stop and arrest, an unlawful search and seizure, the interception and use of an attorney phone call, and denial of the ability to speak privately with an attorney. Thompson requested that Fildes pay for his hardships and be removed from duty. Unlike a related petition Thompson had filed earlier, this petition did not expressly seek his release from custody.

Reasons for the Recommendation

The court first concluded that the petition duplicated Thompson’s petition in No. 26-cv-1993. Both petitions arose from the same traffic stop and ongoing state prosecution, raised the same four constitutional grounds, and involved Thompson in the same pretrial posture. Although the petitions named different respondents, the court said that difference did not make the cases distinct because a person challenging custody under § 2241 generally must name the immediate custodian. The court therefore recommended denying this petition as duplicative.

The court identified several independent grounds for the same result:

- Habeas relief does not provide monetary damages, so Thompson could not recover money from Fildes through this petition. - The principle known as Younger abstention generally prevents a federal court from interfering with an ongoing state criminal prosecution. The court found that the state prosecution met the relevant conditions and that no exception applied. - Thompson had not exhausted available state-court remedies. His state case remained pending at the trial level, and the court stated that appellate exhaustion generally requires entry of judgment in the state prosecution. - The allegation that Fildes destroyed or withheld a voice recording did not avoid abstention or the exhaustion requirement. The court said issues concerning suppression or destruction of evidence can be raised in the state criminal proceedings. - Habeas relief does not authorize the requested damages, removal of a state law-enforcement officer, or prospective protection of other people from future harm. - Because the petition did not seek relief directed at the legality or duration of Thompson’s custody, it did not state a claim that could be pursued under § 2241, even apart from the duplication problem.

Recommendation and Procedural Status

Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended that the § 2241 petition be denied, that the action be dismissed, and that Thompson’s application to proceed without paying filing fees be denied as moot. The opinion is a Report and Recommendation, not a final order or judgment of the District Court. It stated that the recommendation was not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with it.