Davis v. Rardin

Background

William Scott Davis, Jr., who was incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging, among other things, how his sentence was carried out, the duration of his sentence, and the Bureau of Prisons’ implementation of First Step Act programming. His amended petition raised more than fifty grounds for relief. The district court had not yet decided the amended petition itself.

Davis filed numerous additional motions. Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a report and recommendation recommending denial of three of them: two requests for preliminary injunctive relief concerning typewriter and related materials, and a request to set aside or vacate an earlier order. Davis objected to the report and recommendation, but the court found his objections general and repetitive rather than specific.

Rulings on the Report and Recommendation

The court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error. It adopted the report and recommendation, overruled Davis’s objections, and denied the two preliminary-injunction motions. A preliminary injunction is an order providing temporary relief before the case is finally decided. The court held that Davis had not shown an imminent risk of irreparable harm because he had successfully filed dozens of documents without the requested typewriter equipment. The court therefore did not reach the other preliminary-injunction factors.

The court also denied Davis’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to set aside the January 13, 2023 order. That earlier order extended the respondents’ deadline to respond and required Davis to submit one amended petition containing all grounds for relief. The court found that Davis had provided no explanation or evidence of fraud, had not shown a due-process violation, and had not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances required for Rule 60(b) relief.

The court separately denied another request for preliminary relief concerning typewriter ribbons, correction tape, and electronic law-library reprints. It concluded that Davis again had not shown irreparable harm.

Challenges to the April 12 Order

Davis challenged Magistrate Judge Micko’s April 12, 2023 order, which had denied twelve motions, including requests for appointment of counsel. The court denied Davis’s three challenges and affirmed the April 12 order. It found no clear error in denying appointed counsel because Davis had repeatedly filed documents without counsel and had not shown that the case was so factually or legally complex that counsel was warranted.

The court also found no clear error in treating several documents labeled as motions as objections to an earlier order. Davis’s request to remove Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois was moot because the case had been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Micko. The court further held that arguments about time-credit calculations and immediate release duplicated issues in Davis’s habeas petition and were properly dismissed from those motion proceedings.

Challenges to Magistrate Judge Review

The court denied Davis’s motions challenging the magistrate judge’s authority to review his habeas petition. Under the Federal Magistrate Judges Act, a magistrate judge may review a habeas petition and issue a report and recommendation. Davis’s consent was not required because the magistrate judge was not issuing a final judgment. An Article III district judge would consider any objections to the report and recommendation.

The court also denied Davis’s request for an interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before the district court has entered a final decision. The court found no substantial disagreement about whether a magistrate judge could review the petition and found that an immediate appeal would not materially advance the case.

Requests to Vacate Earlier Orders

Davis asked the court to vacate orders extending the respondents’ response deadline and denying his application to proceed without paying the appellate filing fee. The court denied that request. It found no mistake or other exceptional circumstance supporting relief from either order. It also held that Davis’s request concerning the appellate filing fee was moot because the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had already dismissed his appeal as premature for lack of jurisdiction.

Summary-Judgment Motions and Filing Restriction

Davis filed two motions for summary judgment. One sought immediate release based on alleged First Step Act time credits exceeding the remainder of his sentence. The other sought release based on claimed actual and factual innocence and suppression of exculpatory evidence. The court denied both motions because it held that summary judgment is not available in habeas proceedings.

The order directed Davis not to file additional motions or similar requests for relief without prior court permission until the magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on the amended habeas petition. The court stated that Davis retained the right to object to that future report and recommendation under the applicable rules. The order did not decide the merits of Davis’s underlying habeas petition.