Hansen v. Rios
- John Tunheim
- 0:19-cv-00374
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Hansen v. Rios, Judge Tunheim denied Hansen’s release requests, ruling only the Bureau of Prisons and Attorney General could decide home confinement.
Randal Kent Hansen, a federal prisoner seeking court-ordered home detention; the ruling left the release decision with the Attorney General and Bureau of Prisons.
What happened
Hansen v. Rios involved Randal Kent Hansen’s request for immediate release from prison under a program for some older prisoners. Hansen argued that his age and time served required his release to home detention.
The court said the program gives the Attorney General and the Bureau of Prisons discretion over whether to place eligible prisoners in home confinement. The court assumed, without deciding, that Hansen otherwise met the program’s requirements, but ruled that the court itself could not order his release.
Chief Judge John R. Tunheim overruled Hansen’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied both petitions, dismissed the action with prejudice, and declined to grant a certificate of appealability.
The detailed version
- Hansen v. Rios · No. 0:19-cv-00374
- John Tunheim
- Sept. 11, 2019
Background
Randal Kent Hansen, who represented himself, was serving a 108-month sentence after a jury convicted him of mail and wire fraud. He filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a separate petition or motion seeking immediate release. He argued that the Second Chance Act, as amended by the First Step Act, required his immediate placement in home detention because he was over 60 and had served two-thirds of his sentence.
The magistrate judge recommended denying and dismissing the habeas petition with prejudice and denying the request for immediate release. Hansen objected to that recommendation. The district court reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation anew, as required when a party properly objects.
Legal Issue
The relevant statute requires the Attorney General to conduct a pilot program for certain eligible elderly and terminally ill prisoners. It says the Attorney General may release some or all eligible prisoners to home detention. The court explained that the statute requires creation of the program but leaves its implementation and individual release decisions to the Attorney General and the Bureau of Prisons.
The court also rejected Hansen’s reliance on a separate provision concerning prerelease home confinement. It stated that this provision does not guarantee when or for how long a prisoner will be placed in home confinement and applies only to the last six months, at most, of a prisoner’s term.
Court’s Analysis and Rulings
The court held that it had no authority under 34 U.S.C. § 60541(g) to order Hansen’s release to home confinement. Only the Attorney General and the Bureau of Prisons could decide whether to change the location or method of Hansen’s incarceration. The court assumed, without deciding, that Hansen had served two-thirds of his sentence and otherwise qualified for the program.
The court overruled Hansen’s objections and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. It denied Hansen’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied his petition or motion for immediate release. It dismissed the action with prejudice. The court also declined to grant a certificate of appealability because Hansen had not shown that reasonable judges could debate the issues or that further proceedings were warranted.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.