Heurung v. Rardin

Background

Johnny Frederic Heurung, who was imprisoned at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, filed an amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He challenged two consequences of the Bureau of Prisons’ handling of his home confinement.

First, Heurung challenged his transfer from home confinement to a residential reentry center and then to the Federal Medical Center. The Bureau had placed him in home confinement under several conditions, including required check-ins and urinalysis. He did not dispute missing required appointments, but said transportation problems caused by his sister’s unavailability and delays in receiving Social Security payments contributed to the missed appointments.

Second, Heurung challenged the loss of 41 days of good-time credits. The Bureau held a disciplinary hearing concerning a missed urinalysis appointment. The report states that Heurung declined staff representation, witnesses, and documentary evidence. The disciplinary officer found that the greater weight of the evidence showed he committed the violation and imposed the loss of credits.

Analysis

The court explained that home confinement is a form of Bureau of Prisons custody, not supervised release. The Bureau controls placement in home confinement and may transfer a prisoner between custodial settings. Supervised release instead follows imprisonment and is imposed and enforced by the sentencing court.

Because Heurung’s transfer claim challenged where he was held rather than the length of his custody, the court treated it as a challenge to the conditions of confinement. The court concluded that habeas corpus was not the proper procedure for that claim and recommended that the claim be denied.

The court treated the good-time-credit claim as properly brought through habeas because revoking credits could lengthen Heurung’s custody. On the merits, however, the court found no due-process violation. It concluded that Heurung received advance written notice of the charge, an opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence, and a written statement explaining the evidence and reasons for the disciplinary action. The court also found at least some evidence supporting the finding that Heurung missed the required urinalysis appointment, including his admission and reports from residential reentry center staff.

Recommendation and procedural status

Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended that the amended habeas petition be denied and that the case be dismissed with prejudice. The document is a report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court, and it stated that the parties could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served.