Procedural orderFiled Dec. 4, 2025

Luis M. v. United States of America

Judge: Eric Tostrud
Docket: 0:25-cv-04238
Court: U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages: 2

HabeasPro SeImmigrationCivil Procedure

In one sentence

In Luis M. v. United States of America, Magistrate Judge Brisbois recommends dismissing without prejudice Luis M.'s petition for a court order seeking release (a habeas petition) because he failed to pay the filing fee or apply for fee-waiver status within the required time.

Who this affects

Luis M., an individual who filed a habeas petition (seeking court-ordered release) and failed to pay the filing fee or apply for a fee waiver. Also relevant to non-lawyers — particularly immigrants — who may be using unlicensed 'immigration assistants' to file federal court documents on their behalf.

What happened

In Luis M. v. United States of America (Case No. 25-cv-4238), Luis M. filed a petition asking a federal court to order his release — a legal request known as a habeas petition — against the United States. The court's clerk had previously notified him that he needed to either pay the filing fee or apply for permission to proceed without paying (a fee waiver), and gave him fifteen days to do so or risk having the case dismissed.

The deadline passed without Luis M. paying the fee or submitting a fee-waiver application. The court also noted a separate problem: the petition was not signed by Luis M. himself, but was submitted by an 'Immigration Assistant' who is not licensed to practice law in this court. Under court rules, a person representing themselves must personally sign every document they submit, and only a licensed attorney can represent someone else.

Magistrate Judge Brisbois is now recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) — meaning the case would be closed for failure to move it forward, but Luis M. would not be permanently barred from filing again. Because this is a recommendation rather than a final order, Luis M. has 14 days to file written objections with the District Court if he disagrees.

The detailed version

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

This matter comes before Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on a habeas corpus petition — a legal request asking a court to order a person's release from custody — filed by Petitioner Luis M. against Respondent United States of America.

Procedural Background

On November 6, 2025, the Clerk of Court sent Luis M. a letter directing him to either pay the required filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) — that is, without prepaying fees due to financial hardship — within fifteen days. The letter warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal without prejudice. The deadline passed with no payment and no IFP application filed.

Unauthorized Practice of Law Issue

The court also flagged that the habeas petition was not signed by Luis M. himself but was prepared and submitted by an 'Immigration Assistant' acting on his behalf. The court noted that this individual is not authorized to practice law in the District of Minnesota. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), a self-represented (pro se) litigant must personally sign every document submitted to the court. The court rendered this signing deficiency moot given the failure-to-prosecute issue, but warned Luis M. that in any future federal court litigation where he is not represented by a licensed attorney, he must personally sign all submitted documents.

Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Brisbois recommends that the action be dismissed without prejudice — meaning it is closed but Luis M. is not barred from refiling — pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which authorizes dismissal for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. The court cited Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 F. App'x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) as authority for this discretionary power.

Next Steps

This is a Report and Recommendation, not a final order. It is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), any party may file written objections within 14 days of being served a copy, and may respond to the other party's objections within 14 days thereafter. The objections would then be reviewed by the assigned District Court Judge (identified in the case number as ECT — likely District Judge Eric C. Tostrud, though the opinion does not name the District Judge explicitly).

Reviewer note from the AI+

The opinion identifies the case judge only as Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois. The District Judge is referenced only by initials 'ECT' in the case number; I noted this likely refers to District Judge Eric C. Tostrud but did not state that as fact in the detailed summary because the opinion does not name the District Judge explicitly. Also, the opinion does not state the nature of Luis M.'s custody or the specific grounds of the habeas petition, so no facts about those were included. The term 'habeas corpus' was translated throughout per the system prompt rules, though it was retained once in the detailed tier with a definition.

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.