Faul v. Lejeune
- Michael Davis
- 0:22-cv-02993
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Faul v. Lejeune, Judge Docherty granted a 14-day extension to answer Faul’s confinement petition without deciding its merits.
Scott William Faul and the United States, acting through the respondent Michael Lejeune, were affected by the response and reply deadlines. The order did not determine Faul’s entitlement to parole or release.
What happened
In Faul v. Lejeune, Scott William Faul asked the court to review his continued confinement, arguing that he was presumptively eligible for parole after serving 30 years of a life sentence.
The United States requested 60 additional days to respond, citing the need to obtain information about an upcoming parole hearing. The court found the explanation insufficient for a 60-day extension but granted 14 days and required the United States to file its answer by February 10, 2023. Faul could file a reply within seven days after the answer.
Judge Docherty’s order did not decide whether Faul was entitled to release or whether his confinement was lawful. It only set deadlines and required the United States to explain the legal basis and duration of his confinement.
The detailed version
- Faul v. Lejeune · No. 0:22-cv-02993
- Michael Davis
- Jan. 26, 2023
Background
Scott William Faul filed a petition asking the court to review the legality of his confinement. He claimed that he was presumptively eligible for parole under 18 U.S.C. § 4206(d) because he had served 30 years of a life sentence. Materials attached to his petition suggested a presumptive release date of February 14, 2023.
On January 13, the court ordered the United States to answer within 14 days. The answer had to certify the true cause and proper duration of Faul’s confinement and explain why the court should not grant the petition. Two days before the deadline, the United States requested a 60-day extension, stating that it needed information from the United States Parole Board and the Bureau of Prisons concerning Faul’s February hearing.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus allows a prisoner to require the custodian to justify the detention under the law, and that such matters should be handled quickly when possible. The court found that the United States had not explained what information it needed, why that information was necessary to complete its response, or why it could not obtain the information during the nearly two weeks since the court’s prior order.
Because the explanation did not support a 60-day extension, the court was hesitant to grant any extension. It nevertheless granted a two-week extension.
Order
The court directed the respondent to file an answer by February 10, 2023. The answer had to include affidavits and exhibits needed to establish the lawfulness and correct duration of Faul’s incarceration, a reasoned memorandum explaining the respondent’s legal and factual position, and the respondent’s recommendation about whether an evidentiary hearing should occur.
Faul could file a reply within seven days after the answer was filed. The court prohibited further submissions unless it authorized them. The order did not decide the merits of Faul’s petition, his parole eligibility, or the lawfulness of his confinement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.