Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 3, 2021

Husten v. Schnell

Judge
Eric Tostrud
Docket
0:21-cv-01722
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Husten v. Schnell, Judge Tostrud denied Husten’s release petition and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Who this affects

The order affected Michael John Husten’s petition and the action against Paul Schnell, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, and Roy Bosch, Warden of Stillwater State Prison.

What happened

Michael John Husten asked the federal court for an order seeking compassionate release from incarceration. Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a report and recommendation on November 3, 2021.

No party objected to the report and recommendation. The district court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.

In Husten v. Schnell, Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the report and recommendation, denied the petition, dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and did not issue a certificate of appealability.

The detailed version

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

Case
Husten v. Schnell · No. 0:21-cv-01722
Judge
Eric Tostrud
Date
Dec. 3, 2021

Background

Michael John Husten filed a petition seeking an order for compassionate release from incarceration. Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation on November 3, 2021.

Court’s Review

No party objected to the Report and Recommendation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s analysis or findings. The court found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the Report and Recommendation. The court denied Husten’s petition and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not bar refiling, although the order did not explain what jurisdictional problem prevented the court from considering the petition. The court also did not issue a certificate of appealability, a document generally required to appeal the denial of certain federal custody-related petitions.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.