Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 30, 2020

Fabien M. K. v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Judge
Eric Tostrud
Docket
0:20-cv-01903
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Fabien M. K. v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Judge Tostrud denied the habeas petition as moot and dismissed the action without prejudice.

Who this affects

Fabien M. K.; Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security, and the United States Attorney General.

What happened

Fabien M. K. asked the court for a writ of habeas corpus. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a report and recommendation on November 4, 2020, and no party objected.

The court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. It accepted the recommendation and denied Fabien M. K.’s petition as moot.

Judge Tostrud dismissed the action without prejudice and directed that judgment be entered. The opinion does not explain why the petition became moot.

The detailed version

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

Case
Fabien M. K. v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement · No. 0:20-cv-01903
Judge
Eric Tostrud
Date
Nov. 30, 2020

Background

Fabien M. K. filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus against Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security, and the United States Attorney General. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation on November 4, 2020.

Court’s Review

No party objected to the Report and Recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court found no clear error.

Ruling

The court accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied Fabien M. K.’s habeas petition as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered. It does not state the facts that made the petition moot or explain the underlying dispute further.

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.