Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 29, 2018

Husten v. Smith

Judge
Eric Tostrud
Docket
0:18-cv-02712
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Husten v. Smith, Judge Tostrud denied Husten’s petition, dismissed the action with prejudice, and declined to issue an appeal certificate.

Who this affects

Michael John Husten’s habeas petition was denied and his action was dismissed with prejudice; Warden Michelle Smith was the defendant.

What happened

Michael John Husten filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Warden Michelle Smith. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claims or the magistrate judge’s reasoning.

Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau issued a November 1, 2018 report and recommendation. No party objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

In Husten v. Smith, Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the recommendation, denied the petition, dismissed the action with prejudice, and ordered that no certificate of appealability be issued.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Husten v. Smith · No. 0:18-cv-02712
Judge
Eric Tostrud
Date
Nov. 29, 2018

Background

Michael John Husten filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Warden Michelle Smith. The opinion does not state the factual or legal basis of the petition.

Report and Recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau issued a Report and Recommendation on November 1, 2018. No party objected. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s analysis or conclusion. The court found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied Husten’s petition, and dismissed the action with prejudice. “With prejudice” means the action cannot be refiled in the same form. The court also ordered that no certificate of appealability be issued. The opinion does not explain the underlying basis for denying the petition because it addresses the recommendation’s acceptance rather than the petition’s substance.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.