Wattleton v. Unknown Probation Officer et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
David Earl Wattleton,
Petitioner,
v.
Unknown Probation Officer; Unknown
Social Worker, Federal Bureau of Prisons;
Jordan Gayser, U.S. Probation Officer,
Tucson, Arizona; and G. Koss, BOP Social
Worker, Federal Medical Center, Rochester,
Minnesota,
Respondents.
File No. 25-cv-1145 (ECT/SGE)
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
David Earl Wattleton, Rochester, MN, Pro Se.
Ana H. Voss, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondents
Unknown Probation Officer, Unknown Social Worker, Jordan Gayser, and G. Koss.
This case is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate
Judge Shannon G. Elkins. ECF No. 32. Judge Elkins recommends granting Respondents’
motion to dismiss, dismissing Mr. Wattleton’s complaint, and denying as moot Mr.
Wattleton’s application for a writ of mandamus. Id. at 9. Because Mr. Wattleton objected,
the Report and Recommendation has been reviewed de novo. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
D. Minn. 	LR 	72.2(b)(3). 	This 	Order 	presumes 	familiarity 	with 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation.
CASE 0:25-cv-01145-ECT-SGE Doc. 35 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Mr. Wattleton makes three objections, and none gives any reason to reject Judge
Elkins’s conclusion that he failed to show he has no adequate alternative remedy, as
required for a court to grant a writ of mandamus. ECF No. 32 at 5–8; see Castillo v. Ridge,
445 F.3d 1057, 1060–61 (8th Cir. 2006). His first two objections are related. He argues
that Judge Elkins “erred by converting [his] pleadings to a civil action” rather than treating
his filing as a habeas petition, and that she did so “without his consent.” ECF No. 33 at 1–
2. 	This is incorrect. 	Judge Elkins did not “convert” his pleadings to a civil action—he
filed an application for a writ of mandamus in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia. ECF No. 1. That initiated a new civil action. See Rindahl
v. U.S. Att’ys Off., No. 18-cv-3237 (JRT/ECW), 2019 WL 1993827, at *2 (D. Minn. May
6, 2019) (collecting cases concluding a petition for a writ of mandamus is a civil action).
Judge Elkins also considered Mr. Wattleton’s arguments for habeas relief and correctly
rejected them because he failed to properly raise a habeas request, failed to show absence
of an alternative remedy, and did not challenge the legality of his custody. ECF No. 32 at
8–9 & n.6; see Morgan Distrib. Co. v. Unidynamic Corp., 868 F.2d 992, 995 (8th Cir.
1989); Archuleta v. Hedrick, 365 F.3d 644, 648 (8th Cir. 2004); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). His
third objection is that the Report and Recommendation failed to address his claim that this
Court could order habeas relief under Seelig v. United States, 310 F.2d 243 (8th Cir. 1962)
(per curiam). Seelig does not address or undermine the reasons Mr. Wattleton’s ostensible
habeas claim fails, so it is not grounds to reject the Report and Recommendation or to grant
habeas relief. See id. at 243–44.
CASE 0:25-cv-01145-ECT-SGE Doc. 35 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
ORDER
Therefore, based upon all of the files, records, and proceedings in the above-
captioned matter, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Petitioner David Earl Wattleton’s Objections [ECF No. 33] to Magistrate
Judge Elkins’s November 14, 2025 Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 32] are
OVERRULED.
2. 	The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 32] is ACCEPTED.
3. 	Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 19] is GRANTED.
4. 	Petitioner’s Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED.
5. 	Petitioner’s Application for Writ of Mandamus [ECF No. 11] is DENIED as
moot.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 9, 2026 	s/ Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court
CASE 0:25-cv-01145-ECT-SGE Doc. 35 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 3