Sharma v. Eischen
- Dulce Foster
- 0:24-cv-02619
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Sharma v. Eischen, Judge Foster ordered a response on First Step Act prerelease custody and granted in part and denied in part expedited scheduling.
Aditya Raj Sharma and Respondent Billy Eischen. The order directly requires Eischen to respond to Sharma’s petition and sets deadlines for both parties; it also addresses issues raised by similar prisoner petitions.
What happened
Aditya Raj Sharma, a federal prisoner at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota, asked the court to order his immediate transfer to prerelease custody based on time credits he says he earned under the First Step Act. The case is Sharma v. Eischen.
The court ordered Warden Billy Eischen to explain by August 12, 2024 why the petition should not be granted. The court asked about jurisdiction, the merits of Sharma’s claim, possible non-habeas ways to bring the claim, and whether a recent Supreme Court decision affects those issues.
The court did not decide whether Sharma is entitled to relief. Judge Dulce J. Foster accelerated the briefing schedule but not as much as Sharma requested, so his motion for an urgent scheduling order and expedited hearing was granted in part and denied in part.
The detailed version
- Sharma v. Eischen · No. 0:24-cv-02619
- Dulce J. Foster
- July 29, 2024
Background
Aditya Raj Sharma, a federal prisoner detained at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A habeas petition asks a court to review the lawfulness or duration of a person’s detention. Sharma claimed that he earned time credits under the First Step Act of 2018 and therefore was entitled to immediate transfer to prerelease custody.
The order states that the District of Minnesota had routinely rejected similar petitions on jurisdictional grounds, reasoning that a challenge to the conditions of confinement could not be brought through a habeas petition. The court also noted that courts outside the Eighth Circuit had granted habeas relief in similar circumstances and that the federal government had not consistently asserted a jurisdictional defense.
Order to Show Cause
Rather than immediately reject Sharma’s petition, the court ordered Respondent Billy Eischen, identified as the warden of the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, to show cause why the petition should not be granted. The court directed the respondent to address four issues:
- Whether a prisoner may challenge the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ decision not to place the prisoner in prerelease custody through a habeas petition.
- If the claim may proceed in habeas, whether Sharma is entitled to relief on the merits.
- If the claim cannot proceed in habeas, whether another procedure—such as an action under the Administrative Procedure Act or directly under 18 U.S.C. § 3632—could present the claim to a federal court.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo affects those questions.
The respondent was ordered to file an answer by August 12, 2024. The answer must include affidavits and exhibits needed to establish the lawfulness and correct duration of Sharma’s detention, a reasoned memorandum explaining the respondent’s legal position, and a recommendation about whether an evidentiary hearing should occur. If Sharma filed a reply, it was due August 26, 2024; the order stated that no further submissions would be permitted unless authorized by the court.
Scheduling Motion and Disposition
Sharma also moved for an urgent scheduling order and an expedited hearing. The court granted in part and denied in part that motion. It accelerated the briefing schedule, but not to the extent Sharma requested. The court stated that it would decide whether to hold a hearing after the briefing was complete.
This order did not decide whether the court has jurisdiction over Sharma’s habeas petition, whether he is entitled to prerelease custody, or whether another legal procedure is available. It directed further briefing and set the schedule for that process.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.