Taylor v. Miles
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:26-cv-02938
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Judge Menendez dismissed Darryl Taylor v. Eddie Miles without prejudice because Taylor failed to pay the filing fee or apply to proceed without paying it.
People who have filed or are considering filing a federal habeas corpus petition — particularly those who have been directed to pay a filing fee or submit a fee-waiver application and have not done so. This ruling illustrates that failure to comply with basic administrative requirements, such as paying a filing fee or requesting a waiver, can result in dismissal of the petition.
What happened
In Darryl Taylor v. Eddie Miles, Warden (No. 26-cv-2938), Darryl Taylor filed a petition asking a federal court to review his custody — a legal challenge known as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case because Taylor never paid the required $5.00 filing fee and never filed an application to proceed without paying that fee, despite being directed to do so.
The magistrate judge issued that recommendation on July 16, 2026, giving Taylor until July 30, 2026 to object. Taylor did not object, did not pay the fee, did not file a fee-waiver application, and did not contact the court in any way. Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the recommendation only for obvious error.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez found no error in the recommendation and, on August 7, 2026, accepted it and dismissed Taylor's petition without prejudice — meaning Taylor is not permanently barred from filing again if he corrects the deficiency.
The detailed version
- Taylor v. Miles · No. 0:26-cv-02938
- Katherine Menendez
- Aug. 7, 2026
Background
Petitioner Darryl Taylor filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal request asking a federal court to examine whether his custody is lawful — against Eddie Miles, identified in the caption as Warden. The case was assigned to both U.S. District Judge Katherine M. Menendez and U.S. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
On July 16, 2026, Magistrate Judge Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal of the petition. The basis for the recommendation was failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a rule that allows a court to dismiss a case when the plaintiff or petitioner fails to comply with court orders or rules. Specifically, Taylor had been directed to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) — a request to proceed without paying the fee due to financial hardship — and he did neither.
Petitioner's Non-Response
Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), parties have 14 days to file objections to a magistrate judge's R&R. The deadline for Taylor to object was July 30, 2026. Taylor did not file objections, did not pay the filing fee, did not submit an IFP application, and did not otherwise communicate with the court before or after that deadline.
Standard of Review
Because no objections were filed, Judge Menendez applied a clear-error standard of review, meaning the court looked only for obvious mistakes in the R&R rather than conducting a full independent review. 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).
Ruling
Judge Menendez found no error in the R&R and adopted it in full. The court ordered:
1. The R&R (Dkt. 6) is accepted. 2. Taylor's petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. 1) is dismissed without prejudice.
Dismissal without prejudice means the case is closed but Taylor is not permanently barred from refiling; he could potentially file a new petition if he addresses the fee or fee-waiver requirement. The court also directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.