Shay v. Rardin
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:24-cv-03418
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Shay v. Rardin, Judge Schultz recommended denying Shay’s habeas petition because the court lacked jurisdiction over his placement challenge.
Joseph Shay, whose challenge to the Bureau of Prisons’ refusal to transfer him to a residential reentry center was recommended for denial without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; the recommendation also denied his fee-waiver application and expedited-transfer motion and recommended dismissal of the matter.
What happened
In Shay v. Rardin, Joseph Shay challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ decision not to transfer him from prison to a residential reentry center for the final months of his sentence.
The court concluded that Shay’s challenge concerned the conditions of his confinement, not the fact or length of his confinement, so it could not be brought through a habeas petition. The court also said that the governing law gives the Bureau of Prisons discretion over placement decisions.
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended denying the petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, denying Shay’s request to proceed without paying filing fees, denying his request for an expedited transfer, and dismissing the matter. The recommendation was not yet a final order and could be challenged through timely objections.
The detailed version
- Shay v. Rardin · No. 0:24-cv-03418
- Paul Magnuson
- Sept. 19, 2024
Background
Joseph Shay, also known as Mark Shay, is a federal prisoner detained at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. His sentence was nearly complete. The Bureau of Prisons had told him that it would recommend placing him in a residential reentry center for the final six months of his sentence, but it later changed that decision after the proposed facility reported that it could not accommodate his medical needs.
Shay filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his continued detention at the medical center until his release date. He argued that 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1) required the Bureau of Prisons to provide federal prisoners an opportunity to serve part of their final months in prerelease custody.
Analysis
The court identified two problems with Shay’s claim. First, it concluded that the claim was not properly brought through habeas review. Habeas relief can address the fact or duration of confinement, but a request to serve part of a sentence in a residential reentry center instead of prison challenges the conditions or location of confinement. The court therefore concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the habeas petition.
Second, the court said that Shay would not be entitled to relief even if he had used the proper procedural vehicle. Section 3624(c)(1) requires prerelease preparation only “to the extent practicable,” and other statutory provisions give the Bureau of Prisons broad discretion over prisoner placement. The court also cited the statutory provision stating that a prison-designation decision under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) is not reviewable by a court.
Recommendation and Disposition
Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation, not a final order. The recommendation was that:
- Shay’s habeas petition be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. - Shay’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, be DENIED. - Shay’s motion for an expedited transfer be DENIED. - The matter be DISMISSED.
The notice stated that the Report and Recommendation was not directly appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It stated that the parties could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.