Sichting v. Rarden
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:23-cv-00783
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Sichting v. Rarden, Judge Blackwell denied two federal detention petitions and dismissed both actions with prejudice after finding no clear error.
The order directly affected Shane Sichting’s two § 2241 petitions and the two related actions against Jared Rarden. Both petitions were denied, and both actions were dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In Sichting v. Rarden, Shane Sichting filed two petitions asking for a court order concerning his detention under federal law. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.
A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation on January 18, 2024. No objections were filed by the deadline, so the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell found no clear error and accepted the recommendation. He denied both petitions, dismissed both actions with prejudice, and ordered that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Sichting v. Rarden · No. 0:23-cv-00783
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Feb. 13, 2024
Background
Shane Sichting filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in two related actions against Jared Rarden, identified in the caption as the warden of Rochester FMC/FBOP. The supplied opinion does not explain the factual or legal basis of Sichting’s petitions.
Recommendation and review
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation on January 18, 2024. No party filed timely objections. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s analysis. The district court stated that it found no clear error.
Ruling
The court accepted the Report and Recommendation. In Civ. No. 23-783, it denied Sichting’s § 2241 petition and dismissed the action with prejudice. In Civ. No. 23-784, it also denied Sichting’s § 2241 petition and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
Because this order accepted the recommendation after a clear-error review and the supplied text does not contain a merits analysis of the petitions, this summary does not state the underlying reason for the denials.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.