Hector R. v. Berg
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:18-cv-03050
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Hector R. v. Berg, Judge Tostrud dismissed Hector R.’s petition without prejudice after accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Hector R.’s petition was dismissed without prejudice; Peter Berg was substituted as the proper respondent, replacing the originally named Secretary of Homeland Security.
What happened
Hector R. filed a petition challenging his immigration detention and initially named the Secretary of Homeland Security as the respondent. The court explained that the appropriate respondent was Peter Berg, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement official responsible for Hector R.’s custody.
The government asked to substitute Berg as the proper respondent and remove the originally named Secretary. Hector R. did not object. No party objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, so the court reviewed it for clear error.
Judge Tostrud found no clear error, accepted the report and recommendation, and dismissed Hector R.’s petition without prejudice. The order did not decide the petition’s underlying detention-related question.
The detailed version
- Hector R. v. Berg · No. 0:18-cv-03050
- Eric Tostrud
- Apr. 29, 2019
Background
Hector R. filed a petition concerning his immigration detention. He originally named “Secretary of Homeland Security, J. Sessions” as the respondent. The court noted that Hector R. was representing himself and therefore construed his filings liberally.
The court explained that, in an immigration-detention petition, the proper respondent is the Immigration and Customs Enforcement official who controls the petitioner’s custody and can produce him if necessary. The government identified Peter Berg, the ICE Field Office Director, as that official and requested that Berg replace the originally named respondent. Hector R. did not object, and the court granted that substitution request.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez issued a report and recommendation on April 1, 2019. No party objected. Under the applicable procedure, the district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a de novo review.
Ruling
Judge Eric C. Tostrud found no clear error in the report and recommendation and accepted it. The court dismissed Hector R.’s petition without prejudice and directed that judgment be entered. The order does not explain the underlying basis for dismissal or decide the merits of Hector R.’s detention-related claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.