Krithers v. Wojciechowski
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on November 28, 2017. (CLG) Modified text on 11/28/2017 (ACH). cc: Krithers
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASIMIR ROBERT KRITHERS,
Case No. 17‐CV‐0149 (PJS/SER)
Casimir Robert Krithers, pro se.
Gary W. Bjorklund, ST. LOUIS COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, for
Plaintiff Casimir Krithers was charged with domestic assault in state court.
Krithers was confined in a state jail while awaiting trial on this charge. Krithers
challenged his pretrial detention by filing a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Before the Court could rule on Krithers’s petition, however, Krithers was convicted of
the state charges. Therefore, Krithers is no longer in pretrial detention.
This matter comes before the Court on Krithers’s objection to Magistrate Judge
Steven E. Rau’s Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) of September 21, 2017.1 Judge Rau
The Court did not receive Krithers’s objection until the Court had already
entered judgment against Krithers. See ECF Nos. 34‐36. But Krithers claims that he did
not receive a copy of Judge Rau’s R&R until October 5, 2017, and that he filed his
objection fewer than 14 days later. See ECF No. 37 at 4. Therefore, the Court will treat
Krithers’s objection as if it was timely filed. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(1) (giving parties 14
recommends that Krithers’s § 2241 petition be dismissed as moot. The Court has
conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Based on
that review, the Court agrees that, because Krithers has now been convicted, his
challenge to his pretrial detention is moot. See Jackson v. Clements, 796 F.3d 841, 843 (7th
Cir. 2015); Williams v. Slater, 317 F. App’x 723, 724‐25 (10th Cir. 2008); Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 228‐29 (5th Cir. 1993); Thorne v. Warden, Brooklyn House of Detention for
Men, 479 F.2d 297, 299 (2d Cir. 1973); Medina v. California, 429 F.2d 1392, 1393 (9th Cir.
1970). The Court therefore adopts Judge Rau’s R&R.
To be clear: The arguments that Krithers makes in challenging the lawfulness of
his pretrial detention are also arguments that Krithers may make in challenging the
lawfulness of his conviction. (Krithers’s conviction is now on appeal to the Minnesota
Court of Appeals.) The Court is dismissing Krithers’s § 2241 petition without prejudice
for lack of jurisdiction; the Court is not ruling on the merits of Krithers’s arguments. As
a result, the Court’s action does not preclude Krithers from raising his arguments on
appeal from his conviction or in a later § 2241 proceeding.
Based on the foregoing, and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the
Court OVERRULES Krithers’s objection [ECF No. 36] and ADOPTS Judge Rau’s R&R
days to object after being served with a copy of the R&R).
[ECF No. 32]. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Krithers’s § 2241
complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: November 28, 2017
s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?