Blanche v. Blanche
Alan R.M. v. Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; David Venturella, Acting Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Joel Brott, Sheriff of Sherburne County
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:26-cv-03261
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Alan R.M. v. Blanche, Judge Tostrud denied a petition seeking release from immigration detention after adopting a magistrate judge's report finding no basis for relief.
People held in immigration detention who seek release through federal habeas corpus petitions, particularly those detained in facilities supervised by the St. Paul ICE Field Office or Sherburne County.
What happened
In Alan R.M. v. Todd Blanche et al. (No. 26-cv-3261), a person identified only as Alan R.M. filed a petition in federal court asking to be released from immigration detention. The petition asked the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus — a legal order requiring the government to justify why someone is being held — directed at federal immigration officials and a county sheriff.
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz reviewed the petition and issued a Report and Recommendation on July 27, 2026, recommending that the petition be denied. Neither Alan R.M. nor the government filed any objections to that recommendation within the allowed time, which under the applicable rules means the district court reviews the recommendation only for obvious legal error.
Chief Judge Eric C. Tostrud found no clear error in the magistrate judge's analysis and accepted the Report and Recommendation in full. On August 4, 2026, Judge Tostrud denied Alan R.M.'s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered judgment entered accordingly.
The detailed version
- Blanche v. Blanche · No. 0:26-cv-03261
- Eric Tostrud
- Aug. 4, 2026
Background
Petitioner Alan R.M. (identified only by initials, consistent with court practice in immigration cases) filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against several federal and county officials: the Acting Attorney General, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Acting Director of the St. Paul Field Office of ICE, and the Sheriff of Sherburne County. The petition sought relief from immigration detention — presumably challenging the lawfulness or duration of that detention, though the opinion does not describe the specific grounds raised.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on July 27, 2026, recommending denial of the habeas petition. The opinion does not describe the reasoning contained in the R&R.
Standard of Review
Neither Alan R.M. nor the respondents filed objections to the R&R. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)), when no objections are filed, the district court reviews the R&R only for clear error — a deferential standard that makes it significantly harder to reject the magistrate judge's recommendation.
Ruling
Chief Judge Tostrud found no clear error in the R&R. Accordingly, the court:
1. Accepted the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8). 2. Denied Petitioner Alan R.M.'s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1).
The court ordered judgment entered accordingly. The opinion does not address whether Alan R.M. was granted a certificate of appealability (a document required to appeal the denial of a habeas petition) or any other post-judgment relief.
Notes
The opinion is brief and does not detail the factual background of Alan R.M.'s detention, the legal arguments raised in the petition, or the reasoning underlying the R&R's recommendation to deny relief. All of these matters were resolved at the magistrate judge level, and the district court's order is limited to confirming the absence of clear error.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.