Graham v. U.S. Marshal
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:20-cv-01204
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Graham v. U.S. Marshal, Judge Wright dismissed Graham’s habeas petition without prejudice for failing to exhaust other remedies, denied his restraining-order motion, and denied his fee-waiver application as moot.
William Charles Graham’s petition was dismissed without prejudice because he had not exhausted other available remedies. His application to proceed without paying the filing fee was denied as moot, and his motion for a temporary restraining order was denied.
What happened
In Graham v. U.S. Marshal, William Charles Graham asked the court to review his pretrial detention through a habeas petition and sought a temporary restraining order. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the petition because Graham had not used all other available remedies.
Graham filed objections, but he did not challenge the recommendation’s conclusion that he had failed to exhaust those remedies. He also did not raise another objection relevant to the recommended outcome. The district court reviewed the record and agreed that the recommendation was supported by the facts and governing law.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice, denied Graham’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot, and denied his motion for a temporary restraining order.
The detailed version
- Graham v. U.S. Marshal · No. 0:20-cv-01204
- Wilhelmina Wright
- July 20, 2020
Background
William Charles Graham filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and moved for a temporary restraining order. He also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The matter involved Graham as a federal pretrial detainee and named the U.S. Marshal and Joel L. Brott, Sherburne County Jail, as respondents.
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the habeas petition be dismissed, the temporary-restraining-order motion be denied, and the fee-waiver application be denied as moot. The recommendation concluded that Graham had not exhausted all other available remedies. The court explained that federal pretrial detainees may obtain habeas review of pretrial decisions only after exhausting those other remedies.
Objections and review
Graham filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation. The district court stated that Graham did not object to the conclusion that he had failed to exhaust all other remedies concerning the arguments in his petition. He also did not raise another objection relevant to the recommended disposition.
The district court reviewed the portions of the recommendation subject to objection de novo, meaning it independently reviewed them. After reviewing the record, the court concluded that the recommended disposition was supported by the record and controlling legal principles.
Ruling
The court adopted the recommended disposition and ordered three separate outcomes:
- Graham’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed without prejudice.
- His application to proceed without paying the filing fee was denied as moot.
- His motion for a temporary restraining order was denied.
The dismissal was based on failure to exhaust other remedies, and the order did not decide the underlying arguments in Graham’s habeas petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.