Alkamel v. Eischen
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:22-cv-01630
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Alkamel v. Eischen, Judge Tostrud denied the habeas petition and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Malik Noaman Alkamel’s § 2241 habeas petition was denied, and his action was dismissed without prejudice; B. Eischen was the defendant.
What happened
Malik Noaman Alkamel filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against B. Eischen, identified as the FPC-Duluth warden.
No party objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, so the court reviewed it for clear error. The court agreed that the petition should be denied because the issues were moot or not ready for decision.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the report and recommendation in part, denied the petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice because the dismissal was based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Alkamel v. Eischen · No. 0:22-cv-01630
- Eric Tostrud
- Mar. 8, 2023
Background
Malik Noaman Alkamel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against B. Eischen, identified in the caption as the FPC-Duluth warden. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on February 9, 2022. No party objected.
Court’s Analysis
Because no party objected, Judge Tostrud reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error. He found no clear error in its legal conclusions that the habeas petition should be denied on mootness and ripeness grounds. Mootness means there is no longer a live dispute for the court to decide; ripeness means the dispute is not sufficiently ready for judicial decision.
The court determined that the resulting dismissal was for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked authority to decide the action. For that reason, the dismissal was without prejudice.
Disposition
The court accepted the Report and Recommendation in part, denied Alkamel’s § 2241 petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice. 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.