Johnson v. Birkholz

Background

Anthony Johnson and Darnell Hughes filed an amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal procedure for challenging the fact or duration of physical confinement. They argued that they were immediately eligible and entitled to home confinement under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2), as modified by the CARES Act. They also alleged that the Bureau of Prisons violated constitutional and statutory provisions by failing to place them in home confinement.

The matter came before the court on the petitioners’ objection to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The recommendation proposed dismissing the amended petition with prejudice and on the merits. The court conducted a new review of the disputed portions of the recommendation.

The court limited its review to claims in the amended petition filed in September 2021. The petitioners’ later memorandum was treated as a request to file a second amended petition. That request had been denied, and the petitioners did not object to that ruling or file a second amended petition.

Jurisdiction and analysis

A habeas petition may be used to challenge the fact or duration of confinement, including a request for immediate or earlier release. The court explained that habeas jurisdiction is unavailable when a prisoner challenges neither the fact nor the length of confinement.

The court held that home confinement is not release from custody. It is one of several forms of custody administered by the Bureau of Prisons. A request to transfer from prison to home confinement is therefore like a request to transfer from one prison facility to another: it challenges the location or conditions of custody, not the fact or duration of custody.

The court noted that earlier decisions had considered similar home-confinement claims, but those decisions did not address the jurisdictional issue. The court relied on later Eighth Circuit precedent clarifying that conditions-of-confinement claims are not properly brought through a habeas petition. Because Johnson and Hughes were not challenging the fact or duration of their confinement, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the action.

The court also considered whether to allow the petitioners to convert their claims into a civil action. It declined to do so because there were two petitioners, and one appeared to have been released from custody in May 2022, making that petitioner’s claims likely moot. The court concluded that dismissing the case without prejudice would be simpler and more straightforward. It stated that the petitioners could, if they chose, initiate separate civil actions.

Disposition

Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz declined to adopt the Report and Recommendation. The court denied the petitioners’ objection as moot and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.