Aguirre v. Molis
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:26-cv-00514
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Aguirre v. Molis, Judge Magnuson denied Leticia Aguirre's petition for a writ of habeas corpus because she already received credit for the disputed period of federal custody and cannot receive that credit twice.
Federal prisoners who dispute the calculation of custody credit applied toward their sentences — particularly those seeking credit for a period of time that has already been counted against a sentence.
What happened
In Aguirre v. Molis (Civ. No. 26-514), Leticia Aguirre filed a petition asking a federal court to order her release or correct her sentence, arguing she was owed credit for time she spent in federal custody from April 6, 2021, to August 25, 2022. The case was first reviewed by Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, who issued a report recommending that the petition be denied because Aguirre had already been given custody credit for that exact period and the law does not allow a prisoner to receive the same credit twice.
Aguirre did not file any objections to the Magistrate Judge's report, and the deadline to do so passed. When no objections are filed, the district court only needs to check the report for clear error rather than reviewing it from scratch. Judge Paul A. Magnuson reviewed the report and found no error of any kind in the Magistrate Judge's reasoning.
Judge Magnuson adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning Aguirre cannot refile this same claim in this court.
The detailed version
- Aguirre v. Molis · No. 0:26-cv-00514
- Paul Magnuson
- July 9, 2026
Background
Petitioner Leticia Aguirre filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal request asking a court to examine whether a person is being lawfully held or has been lawfully sentenced. Her petition challenged her custody calculation, specifically seeking credit for the period she spent in federal custody from April 6, 2021, to August 25, 2022.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) dated June 9, 2026, recommending that the petition be denied. The basis for the recommendation was that Aguirre had already been given prior custody credit for the disputed period of federal custody and therefore could not receive double credit for the same time under applicable law.
No Objections Filed
Neither party filed objections to the R&R within the time allowed under District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b), when no specific objections are made, the district court's obligation is limited to reviewing the R&R for clear error only — a more deferential standard than the de novo (fresh, independent) review that applies when objections are raised. The court cited Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) for this principle.
Court's Ruling
Judge Magnuson reviewed the R&R and found no error, clear or otherwise, in the Magistrate Judge's reasoning. The court issued the following dispositions:
- The R&R (Docket No. 14) is adopted.
- The Petition (Docket No. 1) is denied.
- The matter is dismissed with prejudice — meaning Aguirre may not refile this same habeas petition in this court.
Key Legal Principle
The controlling rule in this case is that a federal prisoner cannot receive double credit for the same period of time already applied toward a sentence. Because the April 6, 2021, to August 25, 2022, period had already been credited to Aguirre, no additional credit could be awarded for that time.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.