Stark v. Rios
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-00375
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Stark v. Rios, Judge Tostrud denied Stark’s habeas petition without prejudice and dismissed the action after finding the requested home detention remedy unavailable through this case.
Michael D. Stark’s request for placement in home detention was denied without prejudice, and his case was dismissed; the order left the request available for possible further consideration outside this case.
What happened
Stark v. Rios concerned Michael D. Stark’s request for release to home detention under a federal elderly-offender pilot program. Stark represented himself and filed a petition asking for a court order granting that relief.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition without prejudice because the law gave the Attorney General discretion over the pilot program and Stark had not shown that he applied to the Bureau of Prisons or that the program was available at his facility. The record also contained evidence that the facility had preliminarily found him potentially eligible, but he had not been released. Stark objected to the recommendation.
Judge Tostrud reviewed the recommendation and objections from the beginning and agreed with the magistrate judge’s analysis. The court overruled Stark’s objections, accepted the recommendation in full, denied the petition without prejudice, and dismissed the action.
The detailed version
- Stark v. Rios · No. 0:19-cv-00375
- Eric Tostrud
- July 2, 2019
Background
Michael D. Stark filed this case without a lawyer, seeking a writ of habeas corpus—an order concerning the lawfulness or terms of his custody. He sought early release to home detention under 34 U.S.C. § 60541(g), which concerns an elderly-offender home-detention pilot program. The respondent was Warden M. Rios.
Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau issued a Report and Recommendation advising that Stark’s petition be denied without prejudice. The recommendation concluded that the court had no authority to grant early release to home detention under the statute because the provision created a pilot project and gave the Attorney General discretion to decide which institutions would participate.
Arguments and Record
Stark objected to the Report and Recommendation. The respondent filed a short response stating that the recommendation should be adopted in full.
The district court noted that Stark had not presented evidence that he applied to the Bureau of Prisons to participate in the pilot program or that the program was available at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, where he was incarcerated. The record included a Bureau of Prisons document stating that Stark was being recommended for an April 22, 2019 direct-home-confinement placement date under the pilot program. Other evidence indicated that the facility had conducted a preliminary review and found him potentially eligible, but the record showed that he had not been released. The response to the petition also stated that implementation guidance had not yet identified participating facilities, that Stark had not exhausted his administrative remedies, and that the Bureau of Prisons should first consider his request.
Court’s Analysis
Because Stark objected, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo, meaning it independently reviewed the disputed issues rather than simply checking for obvious error. The court concluded that Judge Rau’s analysis and conclusions were correct.
Disposition
The court overruled Stark’s objections, accepted the Report and Recommendation in full, denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice, and dismissed the action. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.