Cheng v. Rardin
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:23-cv-02852
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Cheng v. Rardin, Judge Tostrud denied a habeas petition and show-cause motion, overruled objections, and dismissed the matter without prejudice.
Sheng-Wen Cheng, whose challenge to his eligibility for Residential Reentry Center placement was denied, and Warden Jared Rardin, who remained the respondent.
What happened
In Sheng-Wen Cheng v. Warden Jared Rardin, Sheng-Wen Cheng, representing himself, challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ finding that he was ineligible for placement in a Residential Reentry Center. He also asked the court to order Warden Jared Rardin to explain why the petition should not be granted.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition because Cheng’s challenge was premature, Bureau of Prisons placement decisions were not subject to judicial review, and a habeas petition was not the proper way to challenge a prisoner’s conditions or place of confinement. Cheng objected to that recommendation.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud reviewed the recommendation and objections independently, overruled the objections, accepted the recommendation, denied the habeas petition, denied the show-cause motion, and dismissed the matter without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Cheng v. Rardin · No. 0:23-cv-02852
- Eric Tostrud
- Mar. 25, 2024
Background
Sheng-Wen Cheng filed this case without a lawyer by submitting a petition for habeas corpus, a request for court relief from allegedly unlawful custody or its conditions. His petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ finding that he was ineligible for placement in a Residential Reentry Center. Cheng also moved for an order requiring Warden Jared Rardin to show why the petition should not be granted.
The opinion states that Cheng pleaded guilty to four fraud counts and received a 72-month prison sentence, followed by three years of supervised release and removal from the United States.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recommended denying Cheng’s petition for three reasons. First, the challenge was premature: Cheng could receive at most 12 months in a Residential Reentry Center, and he had about 18 months of custody remaining. Second, courts in the District of Minnesota had repeatedly held that the Bureau of Prisons has exclusive authority to decide prisoner placement and that those decisions are not subject to judicial review. Third, the magistrate judge concluded that habeas relief was not the proper vehicle for challenging a prisoner’s conditions or place of confinement.
Cheng filed objections and two exhibits. Because he objected, the court reviewed the recommendation de novo, meaning independently rather than only for clear error. The court concluded that Magistrate Judge Foster’s analysis and conclusions were correct.
Rulings
Judge Eric C. Tostrud ordered that:
- Cheng’s objections to the Report and Recommendation were overruled.
- The Report and Recommendation was accepted.
- Cheng’s request for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 was denied.
- Cheng’s motion to order the respondent to show cause was denied.
- The matter was dismissed without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling based on the order’s stated disposition.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.