Lopez v. Rardin
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:24-cv-03285
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Lopez v. Rardin, Judge Menendez dismissed the case with prejudice after finding two habeas claims moot and rejecting the third on the merits.
Joel Lopez, Jr.’s challenge to prison disciplinary sanctions was dismissed, while Jared Rardin’s motion to dismiss was granted. The ruling also denied Lopez’s request for emergency and preliminary injunctive relief.
What happened
In Lopez v. Rardin, Joel Lopez, Jr. challenged prison disciplinary sanctions through a petition arguing that they violated the Seventh Amendment and the non-delegation doctrine. The Bureau of Prisons later vacated the sanctions, and Jared Rardin argued that the petition was therefore moot. Lopez argued that an exception for voluntary action applied and sought an order preventing another disciplinary proceeding based on the same conduct.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended granting Rardin’s motion to dismiss, denying Lopez’s habeas petition, denying his request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and dismissing the case. The recommendation found that two of Lopez’s three claims had become moot and that the third claim failed on its substance. No one objected to the recommendation.
Judge Menendez reviewed the recommendation for clear error and accepted it in full. The court granted the motion to dismiss, denied the habeas petition, denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and dismissed the matter with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Rardin · No. 0:24-cv-03285
- Katherine Menendez
- May 28, 2025
Background
Joel Lopez, Jr. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging prison disciplinary sanctions. He argued that the sanctions violated the Seventh Amendment and the non-delegation doctrine. The opinion states that the Bureau of Prisons later vacated the sanctions. Jared Rardin argued that this action made the petition moot, meaning there was no longer a live dispute for the court to resolve.
Lopez argued that the voluntary-cessation exception to mootness applied. That exception can allow a case to continue when a defendant stops the challenged conduct but could resume it. Lopez also requested a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction barring the Bureau of Prisons from subjecting him to disciplinary proceedings a second time for the conduct underlying the sanctions.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended that the court grant Rardin’s motion to dismiss, deny Lopez’s habeas petition, deny Lopez’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and dismiss the matter. Judge Foster found that two of Lopez’s three claims had become moot because of later actions by the Bureau of Prisons. She found that the third claim lacked substantive merit.
No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. The district court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, rather than conducting a new review of disputed portions.
Ruling
Judge Katherine Menendez found no error, clear or otherwise, and accepted the recommendations in full. The court:
- accepted Magistrate Judge Foster’s April 8, 2025 Report and Recommendation; - granted Rardin’s motion to dismiss; - denied Lopez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus; - denied Lopez’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction; and - dismissed the matter with prejudice.
The opinion states that dismissal with prejudice was ordered and that judgment was to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.