Erving v. Rardin
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:26-cv-00220
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Roosevelt Erving v. Jared Rardin, Magistrate Judge Elkins recommended denying Erving’s challenge and dismissing the case because his restitution obligation remains.
Roosevelt Erving, whose federal restitution obligation remains in effect while he is imprisoned and until the later statutory termination date.
What happened
Roosevelt Erving v. Jared Rardin concerns Erving’s request to end a $443,912.34 restitution obligation from his federal bank-robbery convictions. He argued that the obligation expired 20 years after the criminal judgment.
The court explained that federal law ends restitution liability on the later of 20 years after judgment or 20 years after the person’s release from prison. Because Erving remains imprisoned, the later period has not ended, and he still owes the restitution.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins recommended denying the habeas petition and dismissing the case. The recommendation is not a final district-court order, and the notice allowed the parties 14 days to object.
The detailed version
- Erving v. Rardin · No. 0:26-cv-00220
- Eric Tostrud
- Jan. 26, 2026
Background
Roosevelt Erving is serving a federal prison sentence after robbing several banks by force or violence. His criminal judgment required him to pay $443,912.34 in restitution to the banks. Erving filed a habeas petition, which is a request for court relief connected to imprisonment, arguing that the restitution obligation expired 20 years after entry of the criminal judgment. The petition was reviewed at the initial screening stage under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Court’s reasoning
The report and recommendation focused on 18 U.S.C. § 3613(b). That statute provides that restitution liability ends on the later of two dates: 20 years after entry of judgment or 20 years after the person ordered to pay restitution is released from imprisonment. Although 20 years had passed since Erving’s judgment, he remained imprisoned for the offenses that led to the restitution order. The 20-year period measured from his release therefore had not ended. The report concluded that Erving remained responsible for the restitution.
The report also identified two additional grounds that could support denial. It said claims about restitution may not be available through habeas proceedings because they do not challenge custody, and Erving did not appear to have presented this § 3613(b) claim to the Federal Bureau of Prisons before seeking habeas relief. The report stated that these additional grounds were unnecessary because the statute’s text resolved the issue.
Recommendation and procedural status
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins recommended that Erving’s habeas petition be denied and that the matter be dismissed. The document is a Report and Recommendation rather than an order or judgment of the District Court, so it was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. The notice stated that a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation, and could respond to objections within 14 days after being served with them.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.