Machipiness v. Birkholz
- John Tunheim
- 0:21-cv-01668
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Machipiness v. Birkholz, Judge Tunheim dismissed Machipiness’s home-confinement petition with prejudice because this type of petition cannot challenge confinement conditions.
Shaun Machipiness’s request for transfer to home confinement was dismissed with prejudice; the ruling also resolved his claims against B. Birkholz and Michael Carvajal in their official capacities.
What happened
In Machipiness v. Birkholz, Shaun Machipiness challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ refusal to transfer him from prison to home confinement, alleging constitutional and statutory violations.
Machipiness asked the court to reject the magistrate judge’s recommendation or allow him to amend his petition. He argued that the case should be dismissed without prejudice so he could correct the identified problems.
Judge Tunheim overruled Machipiness’s objections, adopted the recommendation, and dismissed the amended petition with prejudice. The court ruled that this type of petition can challenge a conviction or the length of detention, but not the conditions or location of confinement.
The detailed version
- Machipiness v. Birkholz · No. 0:21-cv-01668
- John Tunheim
- Apr. 29, 2022
Background
Shaun Machipiness, representing himself, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus—a court procedure generally used to challenge the legality of a conviction or detention. He alleged that the Bureau of Prisons violated his constitutional and statutory rights by refusing his request to serve the remainder of his sentence in home confinement. The respondents were B. Birkholz, identified as the warden of Federal Prison Camp Duluth, and Michael Carvajal, identified as the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, sued in their official capacities.
Machipiness had pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess methamphetamine in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota. In December 2015, he received a 192-month prison sentence and was projected to be released in March 2028.
Report and Recommendation
A magistrate judge reviewed the petition and issued a report and recommendation. The magistrate judge found that Machipiness had not alleged an equal-protection violation, an abuse-of-discretion claim that the court could review, or a statutory violation. The magistrate judge also recommended dismissal with prejudice on the merits, while recommending dismissal without prejudice to the extent the court lacked jurisdiction to review the Bureau of Prisons’ home-confinement decision.
Machipiness objected and moved to vacate the report and recommendation. He requested permission to amend his petition or, alternatively, dismissal without prejudice so he could refile and correct the identified problems.
Court’s Analysis
The district court explained that the Eighth Circuit has held that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to review conditions of confinement. Habeas relief may challenge the validity of a conviction or the length of detention, but Machipiness did not ask to shorten his sentence. He asked only to serve the sentence at home. The court therefore treated his challenge as one to the condition or location of his confinement, which could not be brought through this type of petition.
Disposition
The court overruled Machipiness’s objections, adopted the report and recommendation, and dismissed Machipiness’s amended writ of habeas corpus with prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.