Saffore v. Federal Bureau of Prison
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:21-cv-02743
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Saffore v. Federal Bureau of Prison, Judge Tostrud dismissed Saffore’s habeas petition without prejudice and denied her request to proceed without paying fees.
Banita Brandise Saffore’s habeas petition was dismissed without prejudice, with the sentence-related portion dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; her application to proceed without paying filing fees was denied. The Federal Bureau of Prison and Warden Starr, Executive Staff were the respondents.
What happened
In Saffore v. Federal Bureau of Prison, Banita Brandise Saffore filed a petition asking for habeas relief. The opinion does not describe the specific claims beyond stating that part of the petition challenged her sentence.
No party objected to the magistrate judge’s recommended decision. After reviewing it for clear error, the court accepted the recommendation.
Judge Tostrud dismissed the sentence-related portion for lack of authority to hear it and dismissed the rest of the petition without prejudice. He also denied Saffore’s application to proceed without paying court fees.
The detailed version
- Saffore v. Federal Bureau of Prison · No. 0:21-cv-02743
- Eric Tostrud
- Feb. 4, 2022
Background
Banita Brandise Saffore filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the Federal Bureau of Prison and Warden Starr, Executive Staff. The opinion provides few details about the petition’s underlying claims. It states that, at least in part, Saffore challenged her sentence.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation on January 12, 2022. No party objected. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s analysis.
Ruling
Judge Eric C. Tostrud found no clear error and accepted the Report and Recommendation. To the extent Saffore challenged her sentence, the court dismissed that part of the habeas petition without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked legal authority to decide it. In all other respects, the court also dismissed the petition without prejudice. The court separately denied Saffore’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. The court ordered judgment to be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.