Purham v. Eischen
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-01310
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Purham v. Eischen, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan denied and dismissed without prejudice Howard Purham's petition seeking transfer to prerelease custody, finding it moot because Purham had already been transferred to prerelease custody.
Federal prisoners seeking court-ordered transfer to prerelease custody, particularly those who may not have completed the prison's internal grievance process before filing in federal court.
What happened
In Purham v. Eischen, federal prisoner Howard Purham filed a petition asking a court to order his transfer to prerelease custody (a less restrictive form of supervision before full release) while held at FPC Duluth, a federal prison camp in Duluth, Minnesota. A magistrate judge — a lower-level federal judicial officer who assists with cases — issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that Purham's petition should be denied as moot, meaning there was nothing left for the court to decide, because Purham had already been transferred to the prerelease custody he was seeking. The magistrate judge also noted as an alternative reason for dismissal that Purham had not exhausted his administrative remedies — meaning he had not gone through the prison's internal complaint process — before filing in court.
Neither Purham nor the government objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation within the required time period. The court noted that it could not even deliver a copy of the recommendation to Purham because he had already left FPC Duluth and no forwarding address was on file. Because no objections were filed, the court reviewed the recommendation only for clear error, which is a limited review standard.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed the case without prejudice — meaning Purham is not legally barred from filing a new petition in the future if circumstances warrant it.
The detailed version
In Purham v. Eischen, Case No. 25-CV-01310 (JMB/JFD), petitioner Howard Purham, proceeding self-represented (pro se), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal action challenging the conditions or legality of one's custody — against respondents B. Eischen and FPC Duluth (Federal Prison Camp Duluth). The relief Purham sought was transfer to prerelease custody.
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on July 1, 2025, recommending denial of the petition on two independent grounds: (1) mootness — because Purham was believed to have already been transferred to prerelease custody, the very relief he sought, rendering the petition moot (no live controversy remained); and (2) alternatively, failure to exhaust administrative remedies — Purham had not completed the prison's internal grievance process before filing in federal court, which is generally required before a federal court will consider such a petition.
The court noted that neither party filed timely objections to the R&R under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), and that the clerk of court was unable to deliver the R&R to Purham because he had been released from FPC Duluth's custody and no forwarding address was available. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 1996)), when no timely objections are filed, the district court reviews the R&R only for clear error — a deferential standard that does not involve a full independent review.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan found no clear error, adopted the R&R in full, denied the petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice — meaning the dismissal does not bar Purham from filing a new petition in the future should grounds exist. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly. The government was represented by Ana H. Voss and Trevor Brown of the United States Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.