McIntosh v. Rardin

Background

Patrick Randell McIntosh filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 concerning disciplinary proceeding number 3728017 at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. The petition challenged various aspects of the proceeding, in which facility authorities determined that McIntosh had violated rules concerning threats of bodily harm and imposed punishment. He asked the court to expunge the related incident report or remand the matter for further proceedings.

In an earlier order, the court explained that the petition raised issues that had to be pursued through a regular civil lawsuit rather than a habeas case. The court gave McIntosh the option to file an amended complaint if he wanted the matter to proceed as a non-habeas civil action. It warned that, if he did not do so, the court would treat the case as a habeas matter. McIntosh did not file an amended complaint.

Motion Seeking Leave and Counsel

McIntosh filed a motion asking for two forms of relief. First, he sought to consolidate claims from two other District of Minnesota cases involving disciplinary proceeding number 3671319. The court denied that request because this case concerned proceeding number 3728017, the other cases were before other judges, and McIntosh gave no reason or legal authority for the requested consolidation.

Second, McIntosh asked the court to appoint counsel. The court denied that request. It explained that there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil litigation and that appointment is left to the trial court’s discretion. The court found that the case was not particularly complex, that McIntosh could investigate the relevant facts for present purposes, that he could express his allegations and positions, and that conflicting testimony did not pose a problem at this early stage.

Habeas Jurisdiction

The court treated the matter as a habeas case because McIntosh had not filed an amended complaint. Habeas relief under § 2241 is available, as relevant here, when a person is in custody in violation of federal law. The court explained that habeas proceedings generally challenge the legality of custody, such as the validity of a conviction or the length of detention. Claims concerning conditions of confinement, rather than custody itself, are not properly brought in a habeas action.

The court concluded that McIntosh’s petition challenged an unspecified disciplinary proceeding and did not challenge his civil commitment. It therefore concluded that a habeas action was not the proper vehicle for his claims and recommended dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked authority to decide the claims in this case.

Disposition

The court ordered that McIntosh’s “Motion Seeking Leave and Counsel” be DENIED. It recommended that the § 2241 petition be DENIED, that the action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and that the application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs be DENIED as moot.

The document was an order and report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty, not a final district-court judgment. The notice stated that it was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit and that written objections could be filed within the time specified by the local rule.