Westphal v. Rardin
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:24-cv-04075
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Westphal v. Rardin, Magistrate Judge Wright recommended denying habeas relief and dismissing the case without prejudice because the claim was not proper for habeas review.
Adam Westphal’s petition was denied for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and his action was recommended for dismissal without prejudice. The recommendation concerns his requested transfer from prison to a residential reentry center; it does not order that transfer.
What happened
In Westphal v. Rardin, Adam Westphal asked the court to order his transfer from prison to a residential reentry center earlier than the date set by the Bureau of Prisons. He argued that officials had not properly applied benefits under the Second Chance Act and First Step Act.
The court explained that a transfer to a residential reentry center changes where a prisoner is held but does not end the prisoner’s custody. Because Westphal was not challenging the legality or length of his detention, the court concluded that his request could not be brought through a habeas petition. The court also decided that converting the case into a regular civil lawsuit would be to Westphal’s disadvantage.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended denying the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissing the case without prejudice. The recommendation was not a final order, and the notice said the parties could file objections within 14 days.
The detailed version
- Westphal v. Rardin · No. 0:24-cv-04075
- Paul Magnuson
- Dec. 10, 2024
Background
Adam Westphal filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking immediate placement in a residential reentry center (RRC). Westphal was serving a 126-month sentence after pleading guilty to conspiring to distribute a controlled substance and possessing unregistered firearms or destructive devices. He was incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota.
In April 2024, the facility’s Unit Team recommended that Westphal receive up to 180 days of Second Chance Act time in an RRC, added to 430 Federal Time Credits under the First Step Act. Based on those calculations, the Unit Team recommended an RRC-placement date of August 29, 2024. Documents submitted by Westphal indicated that the Bureau of Prisons’ Residential Reentry Management system initially set his placement date as March 19, 2025, and later apparently moved it to January 8, 2025. Westphal argued that this showed officials had applied only his First Step Act credits and had not granted him benefits under the Second Chance Act.
Reasoning
The court concluded that Westphal’s claim was not cognizable in habeas. Section 2241 permits habeas relief when a prisoner is in custody in violation of federal law, but the court explained that habeas generally addresses the legality of custody or the length of detention. Moving a prisoner from a prison to an RRC changes the place of confinement without ending custody. Therefore, a petition seeking that transfer does not challenge the legality of the detention and is not a proper habeas claim.
The court characterized Westphal’s claim as a conditions-of-confinement issue. It considered whether to convert the petition into a standard civil action but concluded that conversion would be to Westphal’s detriment. The conversion could impose the $350 statutory filing fee for civil actions, and the court expressed doubt that Westphal could state a claim for relief. The court noted that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to RRC placement. It also stated that the petition did not show a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1), because Westphal was being allowed to spend part of the final months of his sentence in an RRC.
Recommendation and procedural posture
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended that Westphal’s § 2241 petition be denied for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and that the action be dismissed without prejudice. The report and recommendation stated that it was not a District Court order or judgment and was not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It stated that a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.