Anderson v. Birkholz
- Susan Nelson
- 0:21-cv-01420
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Anderson v. Birkholz, Judge Nelson held that home confinement was discretionary, dismissed Anderson’s petition, and denied his show-cause motion.
Melvin Anderson, whose request for home confinement was rejected, and the Bureau of Prisons, whose discretion over that placement decision the court upheld.
What happened
In Anderson v. Birkholz, Melvin Anderson challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ decision not to return him to home confinement. He had previously been returned to prison after a urine test detected alcohol, and the Bureau instead placed him in a residential reentry center.
Anderson argued that a federal law required the Bureau to place him in home confinement. The court disagreed, ruling that the law allows home confinement but does not require it. The Bureau could consider his prior violation and decide that he needed more supervision.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Anderson’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed the petition with prejudice, and denied Anderson’s motion requiring the respondents to explain why the petition should be granted.
The detailed version
- Anderson v. Birkholz · No. 0:21-cv-01420
- Susan Nelson
- July 27, 2021
Background
Melvin Anderson, representing himself, was serving a 68-month prison term. He had previously been released to home confinement but was returned to the Federal Prison Camp Duluth after a urine test detected alcohol in violation of his release conditions. Anderson later sought home confinement again under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2). The Bureau of Prisons denied the request, stating that Anderson had previously failed home confinement and required more supervision than home confinement provided. The Bureau placed him in a Residential Reentry Center for the final four months of his prison term.
Anderson filed a petition asking for release to home confinement and a motion for an order requiring the respondents to explain why the petition should be granted. A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition and motion and dismissing the case. Anderson objected.
Issue and analysis
The dispute concerned whether § 3624(c)(2), as amended by the First Step Act, requires the Bureau of Prisons to place an eligible prisoner in home confinement. The court held that it does not. The statute says that the Bureau’s authority “may be used” to place a prisoner in home confinement, making the placement decision permissive and discretionary. The court also read the statute’s use of “shall” for lower-risk and lower-need prisoners together with the first sentence’s use of “may.” In the court’s view, that language requires the Bureau, when it decides home confinement is practicable and appropriate, to use the maximum permitted period; it does not require home confinement in every case.
The court also agreed that the Bureau has broad authority over prisoner placement. It found that the Bureau acted within that discretion when it relied on Anderson’s prior violation of home-confinement conditions. The court noted that Anderson did not argue that the Bureau had abused its discretion on that basis.
Disposition
The court overruled Anderson’s objection and adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Judge Susan Richard Nelson dismissed Anderson’s petition with prejudice and denied his motion for an order requiring the respondents to show cause why the petition should be granted. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.