MacDermott v. Rardin
- John Tunheim
- 0:25-cv-00005
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 9
Judge Tunheim dismissed MacDermott v. Rardin without prejudice because MacDermott's release from prison made his challenge to a disciplinary proceeding moot.
Federal prisoners who challenge disciplinary proceedings resulting in the loss of good-time credit. This opinion illustrates that such a challenge may be dismissed as moot if the prisoner is released from federal custody before the court resolves the petition, and that none of the standard exceptions to mootness are likely to apply in this context.
What happened
In MacDermott v. Rardin, No. 25-05, Troy Nicholas MacDermott filed a petition asking a federal court to order the restoration of 27 days of good-time credit that federal prison officials had taken away after a disciplinary proceeding at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. A magistrate judge had recommended denying the petition on the merits, and MacDermott filed motions challenging that recommendation. While the court was reviewing those filings, MacDermott was released from federal custody on October 1, 2025.
Because MacDermott was no longer in prison, the court examined whether his case was still live. A federal court can only decide real, ongoing disputes — once a prisoner is released, a case about speeding up that release often becomes moot, meaning there is nothing left for the court to do. The court considered four recognized exceptions to the mootness rule — collateral harm, issues that repeat but escape review, voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct, and class actions — and found that none of them applied here. The court specifically noted that restoring the good-time credit would have no effect on MacDermott's term of supervised release, and that his disciplinary record was irrelevant once he was no longer in custody.
Judge John R. Tunheim denied the habeas petition as moot, denied MacDermott's motion to alter or amend a prior judgment as moot, denied his request for more time to file that motion as moot, rejected the magistrate judge's earlier recommendation as moot, and dismissed the entire action without prejudice. The court also noted that even if the case were not moot, MacDermott's substantive objections — including his argument that the Administrative Procedure Act applied and his reliance on an out-of-district court case — would not have changed the outcome.
The detailed version
- MacDermott v. Rardin · No. 0:25-cv-00005
- John Tunheim
- Dec. 10, 2025
Background
Troy Nicholas MacDermott was serving an 86-month federal prison sentence, to be followed by 40 years of supervised release. While incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, he was involved in an incident with another inmate that led the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to revoke 27 days of good-time credit — time that reduces a prisoner's sentence for good behavior. This pushed back his expected release date, which had originally been October 1, 2025.
MacDermott, acting without an attorney (pro se), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 — a federal statute that allows prisoners to challenge the legality of their confinement or the conditions of their imprisonment in federal court. He raised ten grounds attacking the disciplinary proceeding and one ground based on the timeliness of the court's decision. He sought restoration of the 27 days so he could be released sooner.
Procedural History
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on May 8, 2025, recommending that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. On May 14, 2025, the court adopted a separate, earlier R&R denying MacDermott's request for preliminary injunctive relief. On July 30, 2025, MacDermott filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and a Request for Equitable Tolling of the Rule 59(e) deadline — essentially asking for more time and a second look at the magistrate judge's recommendation.
While the court was considering these filings, it learned that MacDermott had been released from custody on October 1, 2025. The court issued an Order to Show Cause directing the government to confirm the release, which the government did on November 14, 2025.
Mootness Analysis
The court's primary basis for dismissal was mootness. Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, federal courts may only decide actual "Cases" and "Controversies." This requirement must be satisfied throughout the entire life of a lawsuit. If a court can no longer provide meaningful relief to the party who brought the case, the case is moot and must be dismissed.
Because MacDermott had already been released from BOP custody, the court found it could no longer grant effective relief — restoring the 27 days of good-time credit would have no practical effect now that he was free.
The court then analyzed four recognized exceptions to the mootness rule:
1. Collateral Consequences The court found no cognizable collateral consequences. MacDermott's disciplinary record, the court explained, affects only his sentence while in custody and is irrelevant once released. Citing 28 C.F.R. § 2.35(b) and case law, the court noted that good-time credit from one period of imprisonment does not carry over or reduce a term of supervised release. The possibility of expunging the disciplinary record — mentioned in the petition — did not save the case because the record had no ongoing legal effect.
2. Capable of Repetition Yet Evading Review This exception applies only when a dispute is too short-lived to be fully litigated before it ends AND there is a reasonable expectation the petitioner will face the same situation again. The court found no indication MacDermott would be returned to BOP custody or face the same disciplinary circumstances.
3. Voluntary Cessation This exception applies when a defendant stops the challenged conduct but could easily resume it. The court found it inapplicable because MacDermott's release ended the challenged custody, and any future custody would present a different factual situation.
4. Class Action MacDermott filed on his own behalf, not as a class representative, so this exception did not apply.
Alternative Merits Analysis
Although the mootness finding was sufficient to resolve the case, the court addressed MacDermott's objections to the R&R on the merits as well.
APA Argument
MacDermott argued the magistrate judge failed to address his claim that the disciplinary hearings violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs federal agency rulemaking and adjudications. The court rejected this argument because 18 U.S.C. § 3625 expressly precludes APA review of BOP disciplinary determinations involving the reduction of good-time credits.
Reliance on Lao v. Schult
MacDermott cited a 2010 decision from the Northern District of New York arguing prison officials violated timelines for providing incident reports. The court rejected this for two reasons: (1) district courts are not bound by decisions from other district courts; and (2) the regulation cited in that case — specifically the "good cause" provision of former 28 C.F.R. § 541.15 — no longer exists. The court also noted that a failure to deliver an incident report within 24 hours does not automatically constitute a due process violation.
"Some Evidence" Standard
On the underlying disciplinary determination, the court applied the constitutional standard from Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), which requires only that the disciplinary decision be supported by "some evidence" in the record. The court agreed with the magistrate judge that this standard was satisfied based on the evidence identified in the R&R.
Disposition
Judge Tunheim: - Denied the habeas petition (Docket No. 1) as moot - Denied the Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (Docket No. 24) as moot - Denied the Request for Equitable Tolling of the Rule 59(e) deadline (Docket No. 25) as moot - Rejected the May 8, 2025 Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 21) as moot - Dismissed the action without prejudice
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.