Davis v. Rardin

Background

William Scott Davis, Jr. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure for challenging the legality of a person’s custody. He argued that his sentence-related time credit had been calculated incorrectly by 575 days and that the Bureau of Prisons had not properly implemented programs and activities. He also alleged that attempts to remedy those issues led to threats, intimidation, and retaliation.

Along with the petition, Davis filed two applications to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, a motion for appointment of counsel, and a “motion and notice” declining to be heard by a United States magistrate judge. He requested review by a district judge instead.

On December 16, 2022, Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois granted Davis’s first fee application and denied the second as moot. The magistrate judge denied appointed counsel without prejudice because the matter was not then sufficiently factually or legally complex and Davis had not shown that he could not investigate it himself. The order also denied as moot the request for counsel included in the “motion and notice” and denied with prejudice Davis’s request that only a district judge address the matter.

Davis filed two challenges to that order. One sought certification for an appeal and asked that the magistrate judge’s order be vacated. The other asserted “fraud on the court” based on Davis’s refusal to consent to magistrate judge review. The district court considered both challenges together.

Standard of Review

The Federal Magistrate Judges Act permits magistrate judges to handle certain pretrial matters. A district court reviews a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive pretrial matter and may reverse only if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court, after considering the entire record, is firmly convinced that a mistake was made. A decision is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or procedural rules.

Analysis

The court first reviewed the denial of appointed counsel. Habeas proceedings are civil proceedings, so there is no constitutional right to counsel. Courts have broad discretion to decide whether counsel should be appointed. The magistrate judge explained that the case was not then sufficiently complex to require counsel and that Davis had not shown he was unable to investigate it himself. Because Davis presented no evidence that this decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the district court affirmed the denial of counsel. The denial was without prejudice, so the opinion states that Davis could submit another request if circumstances changed.

The court next addressed Davis’s argument that the magistrate judge lacked authority to review his petition because Davis had not consented. The court explained that a magistrate judge may review a petition under § 2241 and issue a Report and Recommendation, which recommends how the district judge should decide the petition. Consent is required for a magistrate judge to issue a final judgment, but not for a Report and Recommendation. Davis may object to that recommendation, and the district court will consider properly filed objections when deciding whether to grant or deny the petition.

The court also rejected Davis’s “fraud on the court” argument. It explained that this doctrine requires misconduct by a lawyer or party that seriously undermines, or is intended to undermine, the integrity of the proceeding. Davis’s argument concerned alleged improper conduct by the magistrate judge rather than misconduct by a lawyer or party, so the doctrine did not apply.

Disposition

The court denied Davis’s Motion for Certification and to Vacate the magistrate judge’s order, denied Davis’s Notice of Appeal, and affirmed the magistrate judge’s December 16, 2022 order. The opinion states that it was addressing only these appeals and not Davis’s other pending motions or the merits of his underlying custody challenge.