Cisneros v. Eischen
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-02129
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Cisneros v. Eischen, Judge Tostrud denied and dismissed without prejudice Edgar Cisneros, Jr.'s petition asking a federal court to order his release or relief from custody because he had not yet exhausted all available administrative remedies before filing in federal court.
Federal prisoners who file habeas corpus petitions in federal court without first completing all available internal administrative grievance and appeal processes within the federal prison system.
What happened
In Cisneros v. Eischen, federal prisoner Edgar Cisneros, Jr. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal request asking a court to review whether his imprisonment or its conditions are lawful — against B. Eischen and FPC Duluth, the federal prison camp where he is held in Minnesota.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on July 16, 2025, recommending that the petition be denied because Cisneros had not first exhausted his administrative remedies — meaning he had not gone through all the required internal complaint and appeal processes within the federal prison system before asking a federal court to step in. Neither side objected to that recommendation, so the presiding judge reviewed it only for clear error.
Finding no clear error in Magistrate Judge Wright's recommendation, Judge Tostrud accepted it and denied Cisneros's petition, dismissing the case without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means Cisneros is not permanently barred from refiling; he may be able to bring a new petition after completing the required administrative process.
The detailed version
This case involves a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Edgar Cisneros, Jr. (Petitioner), a federal prisoner at FPC Duluth (Federal Prison Camp Duluth) in the District of Minnesota. The respondents are B. Eischen and FPC Duluth. The case number is 25-cv-2129.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on July 16, 2025 (ECF No. 7), recommending denial of the habeas petition on the ground that Cisneros failed to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking federal court relief. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite requiring a prisoner to fully pursue all available internal grievance and appeal procedures within the Bureau of Prisons before a federal court will consider the merits of a habeas petition.
No party objected to the R&R within the applicable period. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Eighth Circuit precedent (Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996)), an unobjected-to R&R is reviewed only for clear error. District Judge Eric C. Tostrud found no clear error and accepted the R&R in its entirety.
Judge Tostrud ordered: (1) the R&R is accepted; (2) the habeas petition (ECF No. 1) is denied for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and (3) the action is dismissed without prejudice. Dismissal without prejudice means Cisneros is not barred from refiling after he has properly exhausted the required administrative remedies. Judgment was entered accordingly on August 18, 2025.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.