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 that only prison officials could decide home confinement.
Randal Kent Hansen, who was denied a court-ordered release to home confinement; the decision leaves any such placement to the Attorney General and the Bureau of Prisons.
What happened
Randal Kent Hansen, who was serving a 108-month sentence for mail and wire fraud, asked for immediate release to home confinement under the Second Chance Act. He argued that his age and time served required his release.
The court held that the law gives the Attorney General and the Bureau of Prisons discretion to operate the elderly-offender home-confinement program and decide whether to release eligible prisoners. The court assumed, without deciding, that Hansen otherwise met the eligibility requirements.
Judge Tunheim overruled Hansen’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied both his habeas petition and his motion for immediate release, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Hansen v. Rios · No. 0:19-cv-00374
- John Tunheim
- Sept. 20, 2019
Background
Randal Kent Hansen was incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota, while serving a 108-month sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of mail and wire fraud. Hansen represented himself. He filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure that allows a prisoner to challenge the legality or execution of custody, and a separate petition or motion seeking immediate release.
Hansen argued that the Second Chance Act, as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, required his immediate release to home detention because he was more than 60 years old and had served two-thirds of his sentence. The magistrate judge recommended denying the habeas petition and dismissing it with prejudice, and denying the motion for immediate release. Hansen objected.
Legal Question
The issue was whether the district court could order Hansen’s release to home confinement under 34 U.S.C. § 60541(g). That provision requires the Attorney General to conduct a pilot program for certain elderly and terminally ill offenders, but states that the Attorney General may release some or all eligible offenders to home detention.
The court also addressed Hansen’s reliance on 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c). It explained that this provision does not guarantee when or for how long a prisoner will receive home confinement and applies to pre-release home confinement during the last six months, at most, of a prisoner’s sentence.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the statute requires creation of the pilot program but leaves the program’s implementation and any individual release decision to the Attorney General’s discretion. The Bureau of Prisons likewise retains authority over the method and location of a prisoner’s incarceration. Therefore, the district court could not itself change Hansen’s incarceration from the federal prison camp to home confinement.
The court noted that Hansen might qualify under the pilot program after the Bureau of Prisons completed its implementation, but stated that determining this was reserved to the Attorney General and the Bureau of Prisons. The court assumed, without deciding, that Hansen had served two-thirds of his sentence and was otherwise eligible.
Disposition
Judge John R. Tunheim overruled Hansen’s objections and adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The court denied Hansen’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, denied his Petition/Motion for Immediate Release, and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court ordered judgment entered accordingly.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.