Vanderlinden v. Eishen
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:23-cv-00250
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Vanderlinden v. Eishen, Judge Blackwell accepted the recommendation, denied an extension as moot, and dismissed the § 2241 petition without prejudice as moot.
The ruling directly affected Paul R. Vanderlinden and respondent B. Eishen. It ended this action by denying the petition as moot and dismissing it without prejudice.
What happened
Vanderlinden v. Eishen involved Paul R. Vanderlinden’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against B. Eishen, identified as the warden of FPC Duluth. Vanderlinden represented himself, while the respondent had counsel.
A magistrate judge recommended resolving the case, and no one filed a timely objection. The district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. It also noted that Vanderlinden’s reply had already been received, making his request for more time unnecessary.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell accepted the recommendation, denied the request for more time as moot, denied the petition as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The order did not decide the petition’s underlying legal question.
The detailed version
- Vanderlinden v. Eishen · No. 0:23-cv-00250
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- July 13, 2023
Background
Paul R. Vanderlinden, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against B. Eishen, identified in the caption as Warden of FPC Duluth. The respondent was represented by attorneys from the United States Attorney’s Office.
United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation on June 15, 2023. The order states that no timely objections were filed. When no timely objection is made, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error.
Rulings
The court ordered three things:
- It denied as moot Vanderlinden’s motion for an extension of time to file his reply brief because the court had already received the reply on March 20,
- 2. It accepted the June 15, 2023 Report and Recommendation.
- It denied as moot Vanderlinden’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and dismissed without prejudice the action.
Because the petition was resolved as moot, the order did not reach the underlying legal question raised by the petition. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar a later filing, although the order does not address whether any later filing would be permitted or successful.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.