Sichting v. Rardin

Background

Shane Douglas Sichting, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking an order requiring the Bureau of Prisons to transfer him from Federal Medical Center–Rochester to a residential reentry center in Montana or to home confinement. He alleged that he had been moved from the reentry center after being falsely accused of violating a rule, and that the charge was later expunged as not procedurally sound.

Sichting had earned the maximum 365 days of time credits toward early supervised release and at least 525 days toward early prerelease custody. The Bureau of Prisons offered an earlier placement at an out-of-district reentry center or home confinement. His request for home confinement was denied because his home was about 350 miles from a district office. He later received a December 31, 2024 placement date at the Montana reentry center.

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denying Sichting’s request for expedited briefing as moot. Sichting objected.

Court’s analysis

The district court agreed that it lacked jurisdiction over Sichting’s § 2241 claim. It explained that this type of petition is used to challenge the fact or duration of physical confinement. Sichting instead sought to change the location and conditions of his confinement. Under controlling Eighth Circuit precedent, that is not a proper use of a § 2241 petition.

The court acknowledged that courts may sometimes recharacterize a petition as a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which would use a different legal procedure. The magistrate judge had stated that such a change would likely provide little help because Sichting appeared not to have exhausted administrative remedies and would face the full statutory filing fee for a non-habeas civil action. Sichting objected that he had exhausted his remedies, and the district court found that he did not concede otherwise. The court also noted that the respondent had not raised failure to exhaust as an affirmative defense.

The court further stated that Sichting might have a valid argument that 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d) requires the Bureau of Prisons to transfer eligible prisoners who have earned sufficient time credits into prerelease custody or supervised release. The court noted that § 3632(d) differs from another statute containing discretionary language and that lack of bed space may not excuse the Bureau of Prisons from meeting its statutory obligations. The court did not decide that issue because the petition was brought through the wrong legal procedure.

Disposition

Judge Susan Richard Nelson sustained Sichting’s objection in part and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation with modifications. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice, leaving Sichting to choose whether to file a civil-rights action under § 1983. The court denied as moot the motion for expedited briefing and directed that judgment be entered.