Breitkreutz v. Feltman
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:26-cv-03134
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Breitkreutz v. Feltman, Judge Provinzino adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and denied Lisa Jo Breitkreutz's petition for release from custody, dismissing the case without prejudice.
People who have filed or are considering filing a federal habeas corpus petition challenging their custody, particularly those in the District of Minnesota, and people who do not object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
What happened
In Breitkreutz v. Feltman (Case No. 26-cv-3134), Lisa Jo Breitkreutz filed a petition asking a federal court to order her release from custody — a legal challenge known as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A magistrate judge reviewed the petition and, on July 15, 2026, recommended that it be denied. No party objected to that recommendation.
Because neither side objected, the district court reviewed the magistrate judge's recommendation only for obvious mistakes. Finding none, the court accepted the recommendation in full. The court also denied Breitkreutz's request to proceed without paying court filing fees, ruling that request moot since the case was being dismissed anyway.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino formally denied the petition, dismissed the case without prejudice (meaning Breitkreutz is not automatically barred from filing again under different circumstances), and declined to issue a certificate of appealability — a document that would have been required for Breitkreutz to appeal the ruling to a higher court.
The detailed version
- Breitkreutz v. Feltman · No. 0:26-cv-03134
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Aug. 18, 2026
Background
Petitioner Lisa Jo Breitkreutz filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal challenge in which a person in custody asks a federal court to examine the legality of that custody and potentially order release. The respondent is Will Feltman. The opinion does not describe the underlying conviction, sentence, or the specific grounds Breitkreutz raised in her petition.
Breitkreutz also filed an application to proceed without prepaying filing fees or costs (commonly called an in forma pauperis application), indicating she sought to litigate without upfront payment.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on July 15, 2026, recommending that the habeas petition be denied. The opinion does not set out the specific legal reasoning in the R&R; it references the R&R document (ECF No. 5) but does not reproduce its analysis.
Standard of Review
Because no party objected to the R&R within the time allowed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), the district court applied a "clear error" standard of review — the most deferential standard available. Under this standard, the court overturns a magistrate judge's recommendation only if there is an obvious mistake. The court cited Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996), for this proposition.
Rulings
Judge Provinzino found no clear error and adopted the R&R in full. The court then issued the following dispositions:
- Petition denied. The habeas petition (ECF No. 1) is denied.
- Fee application denied as moot. The application to proceed without prepayment of fees (ECF No. 2) is denied as moot because the case is being dismissed.
- Case dismissed without prejudice. The action is dismissed without prejudice, meaning dismissal does not automatically bar Breitkreutz from filing a new petition under different circumstances, though other procedural rules (not addressed in this opinion) could independently limit refiling.
- No certificate of appealability. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability (COA). A COA is a prerequisite for a habeas petitioner to appeal a denial to a federal court of appeals; without it, an appeal cannot proceed absent permission from the appellate court.
What the Opinion Does Not Address
The order is brief and adopts the R&R by reference. The substantive legal reasoning — the specific grounds Breitkreutz raised, why those grounds fail, and the factual background of the custody at issue — is contained in the R&R itself, which is not reproduced in this opinion text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.