Leetch v. Fikes
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:21-cv-01432
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Leetch v. Fikes, Judge Menendez denied Leetch’s petition challenging the loss of 41 days’ good-conduct time and denied his status-update motion as moot.
Paul Brooks Leetch’s request to restore 41 days of good-conduct time was denied. His motion for a status update was also denied as moot.
What happened
In Leetch v. Fikes, Paul Brooks Leetch asked the court to restore 41 days of good-conduct time revoked through the prison disciplinary process. He argued that the revocation violated his right to due process.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition. Because neither side objected, the district court reviewed that recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Menendez accepted the recommendation and denied Leetch’s petition. The court also denied his motion for a status update as moot, meaning the court found no need to address it separately.
The detailed version
- Leetch v. Fikes · No. 0:21-cv-01432
- Katherine Menendez
- Nov. 15, 2022
Background
Paul Brooks Leetch filed a petition seeking restoration of 41 days of good-conduct time. The petition challenged the revocation of that time through the prison disciplinary process, alleging a violation of due process. The respondent was Jeffrey Fikes, identified in the caption as warden of FCI-Sandstone.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended that the petition be denied because Leetch had not shown a violation of his due process rights. No objections were filed.
When no specific objections are filed, the district court reviews a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation for clear error. After reviewing the recommendation and the record, the court found that Judge Schultz committed no error and that the recommendation correctly applied the deferential legal standards governing Leetch’s challenge.
Ruling
Judge Menendez ordered that the report and recommendation be accepted. The court denied Leetch’s habeas petition and denied his motion for a status update as moot. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.