Zazueta v. Eischen
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-01664
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Zazueta v. Eischen, Judge Menendez denied Pablo Zazueta's petition asking a federal court to review his imprisonment and dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning he may be able to refile.
Pablo Zazueta, a prisoner at FPC Duluth, whose petition challenging his confinement was denied. Others who file habeas petitions and fail to object to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation face the same deferential 'clear error' review standard applied here.
What happened
In Zazueta v. Eischen (Case No. 25-CV-1664), Pablo Zazueta, a prisoner at FPC Duluth (a federal prison camp in Duluth, Minnesota), filed a petition asking the federal court to review the legality of his confinement — a legal tool known as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He named as respondents B. Eischen, FPC Duluth, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
A United States Magistrate Judge, Shannon G. Elkins, reviewed the case and issued a Report and Recommendation on May 20, 2025, recommending that the petition be denied. Zazueta did not file any objections to that recommendation within the time allowed. Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the recommendation only for clear error — a less intensive standard of review than if objections had been raised.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez found no error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis and accepted the Report and Recommendation in full. As a result, Zazueta's petition was denied and the case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning the dismissal does not permanently bar him from filing again if he has grounds to do so.
The detailed version
This case involves a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal mechanism by which a person in custody challenges the legality of their detention in federal court — filed by Pablo Zazueta against B. Eischen, FPC Duluth, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP). The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota and assigned Case No. 25-CV-1664.
United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on May 20, 2025, recommending denial of the petition. The opinion does not describe the substantive grounds of the petition or the Magistrate Judge's reasoning beyond the recommendation itself.
Petitioner Zazueta did not file objections to the R&R within the permitted time period. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b), when no objections are filed, the district court reviews the R&R for clear error only — a deferential standard — rather than conducting a de novo (fresh, independent) review. The court cited Nur v. Olmsted County, 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021), and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996), as authority for this standard.
United States District Judge Katherine M. Menendez reviewed the R&R and the full record and found no error, clear or otherwise. She accepted the R&R in full. The court ordered: (1) the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (docket entry 1) is DENIED; and (2) the matter is DISMISSED without prejudice — meaning the dismissal does not foreclose future filings if Zazueta has proper grounds to refile. The order was entered on August 13, 2025.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.