Goich v. Birkholz
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-03064
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Goich v. Birkholz, Judge Tostrud accepted a recommendation, denied habeas relief in part without prejudice, and otherwise with prejudice.
Rodney J. Goich’s habeas petition was partly denied for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and otherwise denied with prejudice; Warden Birkholz was the respondent.
What happened
Rodney J. Goich filed a petition seeking a court order challenging a monetary fine and the loss of telephone, email, and visiting privileges, along with other matters not described in this order. The respondent is Warden Birkholz.
The court accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. It denied the challenges to the fine and lost privileges without prejudice because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and denied the petition with prejudice in all other respects.
No party objected to the recommendation, so Judge Eric C. Tostrud reviewed it for clear error, found none, accepted it, and ordered that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Goich v. Birkholz · No. 0:19-cv-03064
- Eric Tostrud
- Aug. 26, 2020
Background
Rodney J. Goich petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The order states that the petition challenged a monetary fine and the loss of telephone, email, and visiting privileges, but it does not describe the petition’s other claims.
Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson issued a Report and Recommendation on August 3, 2020. No party objected to it.
Ruling
The court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, because no party objected. Finding no clear error, the court accepted the recommendation.
The court denied the petition without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction to the extent it challenged the monetary fine and the loss of telephone, email, and visiting privileges. “Without prejudice” means that this particular disposition does not itself bar refiling. In all other respects, the court denied the petition with prejudice, meaning that those portions were barred from being brought again.
Effect
The order directed that judgment be entered. Judge Eric C. Tostrud did not provide further explanation of the underlying claims or the basis for the recommendation beyond the jurisdictional ruling described above.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.