Hertzberger v. Rardin
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:22-cv-00756
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Hertzberger v. Rardin, Judge Wright overruled Hertzberger’s objection, denied his petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
Robert Hertzberger’s request for home-confinement-related relief was denied, and his action was dismissed without prejudice; Jarid Rardin prevailed on the ruling.
What happened
In Hertzberger v. Rardin, Robert Hertzberger challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ denial of his request for home confinement. He sought a ruling that his offense did not exclude him from home-confinement eligibility and that he was entitled to those benefits.
Hertzberger objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, arguing that the court may have misunderstood his request and asking it to clarify whether his offense was considered a crime of violence. The district court found that he was repeating an argument already presented to and rejected by the magistrate judge.
Judge Wilhelmina Wright found no clear error, overruled Hertzberger’s objection, adopted the recommendation, denied the habeas petition, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Hertzberger v. Rardin · No. 0:22-cv-00756
- Wilhelmina Wright
- July 28, 2023
Background
Robert Hertzberger was convicted of distributing OxyContin resulting in death under 21 U.S.C. § 841 and was sentenced by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to 360 months in prison. In early 2022, the Bureau of Prisons denied his request for home confinement.
Hertzberger then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking a declaratory judgment that his offense was not excluded from home-confinement eligibility and an advisory opinion that he was entitled to those benefits. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation on March 23, 2023. Hertzberger objected, and Jarid Rardin filed a reply.
Court’s Analysis
The district court explained that it reviews the portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that are specifically challenged from the beginning. But when an objection merely repeats an argument already presented to and decided by the magistrate judge, the court reviews the recommendation for clear error.
Hertzberger argued that the court may have misunderstood the true nature of his request and asked it to clarify for the Bureau of Prisons whether his offense was considered a crime of violence. The district court found that Hertzberger had already presented this argument to the magistrate judge and that the recommendation had rejected it. After reviewing the record for clear error, the court found none and adopted the recommendation.
Disposition
The court overruled Hertzberger’s objection, adopted the March 23, 2023 report and recommendation, denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and dismissed the action without prejudice. The order does not provide the report and recommendation’s full reasoning for rejecting Hertzberger’s home-confinement argument.
Judge
The order was signed by United States District Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.