Szachury v. Molis
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:26-cv-00589
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Szachury v. Molis, Judge Menendez denied as moot a petition challenging a First Step Act time-credit calculation error that had already been corrected.
Federal prisoners who file habeas petitions challenging First Step Act time-credit calculations may have their cases dismissed as moot if the government corrects the alleged error before the court rules.
What happened
In Szachury v. L. Molis, Warden, federal prisoner Jaclyn Szachury filed a petition asking the court to review an error in how her time credits were calculated under the First Step Act — a federal law that allows certain prisoners to earn credits toward early release. After she filed the petition, the error was corrected by the government.
Because the underlying problem had already been fixed, Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the petition was moot — meaning there was no longer a live dispute for the court to resolve — and recommending that it be dismissed. Ms. Szachury did not file any objection to that recommendation.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error, found none, and denied Szachury's petition as moot on July 21, 2026.
The detailed version
- Szachury v. Molis · No. 0:26-cv-00589
- Katherine Menendez
- July 21, 2026
Background
Petitioner Jaclyn Szachury filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus — a legal action used to challenge the legality of one's confinement or the conditions of a sentence — in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Her petition alleged an error in the calculation of her time credits under the First Step Act, a federal statute that permits eligible incarcerated individuals to earn time credits applicable toward supervised release or prerelease custody.
Subsequent Correction and Mootness
After the petition was filed, the Bureau of Prisons corrected the alleged calculation error. United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on June 5, 2026, concluding that the correction rendered the petition moot — meaning the controversy that gave rise to the petition no longer existed — and recommending dismissal. Ms. Szachury did not file any objection to the R&R.
Standard of Review
When no party objects to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court reviews it only for clear error, applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The court cited Nur v. Olmsted County, 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021), and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996), for this standard.
Ruling
Judge Menendez found no clear error in the R&R, accepted it, and denied Szachury's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus as moot. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.