Jun v. Eischen
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:22-cv-02704
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Jun v. Eischen, Judge Blackwell denied Jun’s time-credit petition, denied related requests, and dismissed the action.
Sung Mo Jun, whose federal time-credit petition and related requests were denied or denied as moot, and whose action was dismissed.
What happened
In Jun v. Eischen, Sung Mo Jun objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning his petition challenging federal prison time credits and confinement-related relief. Jun represented himself.
Jun argued that he should have received 15, rather than 10, days of time credit for every 30 days of participation in eligible programs and activities beginning June 20, 2022, with the credits applied retroactively. He also sought an earlier home-confinement date. The court rejected the time-credit argument and said it lacked jurisdiction over the home-confinement claim because Jun was not challenging the fact or duration of his confinement.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell overruled Jun’s objections and accepted the recommendation. The court denied the habeas petition, denied Jun’s letter request, denied two other requests as moot, and dismissed the action.
The detailed version
- Jun v. Eischen · No. 0:22-cv-02704
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Sept. 11, 2023
Background
Sung Mo Jun filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure that allows a person in federal custody to challenge certain aspects of the custody or the execution of a sentence. United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on June 30, 2023. Jun filed a document titled “Motion for De Novo Review,” which the court treated as an objection to the recommendation.
Jun’s objections
Jun argued that he should have been earning 15 days of Federal Bureau of Prisons time credits for every 30 days of participation in eligible programs and activities, rather than 10 days, beginning June 20, 2022. He also sought retroactive application of the credits. The court noted that other decisions in the district had rejected the same theory. The court further concluded that describing the credits as “incentives and rewards” under 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d) did not change when the applicable credit rate began.
Jun also sought an earlier date for home confinement. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over that claim because Jun was not challenging the fact or duration of his confinement. The court stated that a habeas proceeding was not the proper remedy for challenging the place of confinement.
Review of the recommendation
The court reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which Jun made specific objections without deference, and reviewed the remaining portions for clear error. Because Jun represented himself, the court construed his objections liberally. The court found no legal or factual error requiring rejection of the recommendation and found that the unchallenged portions were neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. It accepted the recommendation in its entirety.
Disposition
The court ordered the following:
- Jun’s objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation were overruled. - The Report and Recommendation was accepted. - Jun’s petition under § 2241 was denied. - His motion for expedited relief was denied as moot. - His letter requesting permission to ask about a legal vehicle for seeking relief concerning alleged medical malpractice and the administrative-remedy process was denied. The court noted that the original petition did not include a medical-malpractice claim and that Jun had not amended the petition to add one. - His urgent request for a ruling was denied as moot. - The action was dismissed.
The order was signed by United States District Judge Jerry W. Blackwell.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.