Shay v. Rardin
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:24-cv-03418
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Shay v. Rardin, Judge Magnuson denied Shay’s petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, denied two related motions, and dismissed the case.
Joseph Shay, also known as Mark Shay, whose petition and related motions were denied; Jared Rardin, the named defendant.
What happened
Shay v. Rardin concerned Joseph Shay’s petition against Jared Rardin, identified as a warden. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the matter without prejudice because the court lacked jurisdiction over the petition.
Shay objected, but his objections did not clearly identify an error in the recommendation. He referred to instructions for petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and argued that a Supreme Court decision, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, gave the court jurisdiction. The court rejected that argument because the decision did not address jurisdiction over habeas petitions.
Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the recommendation. He denied the petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, denied Shay’s application to proceed without paying court fees, denied his motion for an expedited transfer to prerelease, and dismissed the matter.
The detailed version
- Shay v. Rardin · No. 0:24-cv-03418
- Paul Magnuson
- Oct. 24, 2024
Background
Joseph Shay, also known as Mark Shay, filed a petition against Jared Rardin, identified as a warden. United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a report and recommendation recommending dismissal without prejudice because the court lacked jurisdiction over Shay’s petition. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claims.
Objections and Review
Shay filed objections to the report and recommendation. The court stated that it was required to independently review any part of the recommendation to which specific objections were made. The court found Shay’s objections sparse and unclear. He referred the court to a page of instructions about petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, but did not identify a specific objection. He also argued that Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024), gave the court jurisdiction. The court rejected that argument, stating that Loper Bright did not discuss jurisdiction over habeas petitions. Because Shay gave no reason to conclude that the recommendation was clearly erroneous, the court found that his objections failed.
Ruling
The court adopted the report and recommendation. It ordered that:
- Shay’s petition was DENIED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. - Shay’s application to proceed without paying court fees was DENIED. - Shay’s motion for an expedited transfer to prerelease was DENIED. - The matter was DISMISSED.
The order disposed of the case for lack of jurisdiction rather than deciding the petition’s underlying merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.