Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Substantive rulingFiled June 27, 2023

Do v. Segal

Judge
Jerry Blackwell
Docket
0:23-cv-01599
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasSentencing
In one sentence

In Do v. Segal, Judge Blackwell denied Anh T. Do’s habeas petition, accepting the recommendation that the First Step Act does not support her interpretation.

Who this affects

Anh T. Do’s petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ interpretation of the First Step Act was denied, and her action was dismissed. The opinion does not describe any broader effect on other people.

What happened

In Do v. Segal, Anh T. Do challenged the magistrate judge’s analysis of how the Bureau of Prisons interpreted the First Step Act. She objected to the recommendation that her petition be denied.

The district court found no clear error in the magistrate judge’s main conclusion that the First Step Act’s text is not ambiguous and does not support Do’s reading of the law. The court therefore accepted the recommendation in full.

Judge Jerry W. Blackwell overruled Do’s objection, denied her habeas petition, accepted the report and recommendation, and dismissed the action.

The detailed version

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

Case
Do v. Segal · No. 0:23-cv-01599
Judge
Jerry W. Blackwell
Date
June 27, 2023

Background

Anh T. Do, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the magistrate judge’s analysis concerning the Bureau of Prisons’ interpretation of the First Step Act. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended denying the petition. Do objected to that recommendation.

Court’s analysis

The district court reviewed the parts of the report and recommendation to which Do objected without deference, and reviewed the remaining parts for clear error. The court stated that the magistrate judge’s analysis of whether the Bureau of Prisons reasonably interpreted the First Step Act was secondary to the conclusion that the Act’s text is not ambiguous and does not support Do’s interpretation.

Because the court found no clear error in that primary analysis, it gave no weight to Do’s objection to the secondary analysis. After reviewing the rest of the report and recommendation, the court found it neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

Ruling

The court overruled Anh T. Do’s objection, accepted the report and recommendation in its entirety, denied her petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and dismissed the action. The order also directed that judgment be entered accordingly.

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.