United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Michael Lloyd Korsh, pro se.
Voss, Ann M. Bildtsen, & David W. Fuller, United States
Attorne for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on the Objection
(“Objection”) [Doc. No. 15] of Petitioner Michael
Lloyd Korsh to Magistrate Leo Brisbois's Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) dated July 2, 2018
[Doc. No. 14]. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Brisbois
recommended that Korsh's Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”)
[Doc. No. 1] be denied. For the reasons set forth below, and
after a de novo review, the Petition is denied as
pled guilty to possession of child pornography in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2). USA
v. Korsh, No. 16-cr-261, Plea Agreement [Doc. No. 14].
Petitioner was sentenced to a thirty-month term of
imprisonment and ten years of supervised release on April 27,
Petitioner filed this Petition on May 3, 2018, he was in the
custody of the Federal Correctional Institute
(“FCI”) in Sandstone, Minnesota. (Petition at 1.)
Petitioner argues that the Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) was arbitrary and capricious when it
placed him in a residential reentry center
(“RRC”) in Edina, Minnesota on September 25,
2018, instead of on his original placement date of July 31,
2018. (Petition at 6-7; Pet'r's Mem. in Supp. [Docket
No. 3] at 7-13.) Petitioner claims that he was entitled to
complete 180 days in the RRC, instead of the 123 days he was
ultimately assigned. (Petition at 8.)
R&R, Magistrate Judge Brisbois recommended denying the
Petition and dismissing the action with prejudice. (R&R
at 9.) Specifically, Magistrate Judge Brisbois determined
that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider
Petitioner's claims and that the BOP did not violate any
federal statutes or the Constitution. (Id. at 7, 9.)
on January 25, 2019, Petitioner was released from custody and
his period of supervised release began. Korsh, No.
16-cr-261, Supervised Release: Modification of Conditions
[Doc. No. 51].
Standard of Review
issuance of an R&R, a party may “serve and file
specific written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). The objections
should specify the portion of the magistrate judge's
[R&R] to which objections are made and provide a basis
for those objections.” Mayer v. Walvatne, No.
07-cv-1958 (JRT/RLE), 2008 WL 4527774, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept.
28, 2008). Then, the district court will review de
novo those portions of the R&R to which an objection
is made, and it “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3).
III of the Constitution grants jurisdiction over cases and
controversies. Ali v. Cangemi, 419 F.3d 722, 723
(8th Cir. 2005). If a subsequent development in a case
results in a court's inability to “grant effective
relief, the case is considered moot.” Id.
(citation omitted); see also Roberts v. Norris, 415
F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 2005). A petitioner's release
from custody does not automatically render the petition moot.
Estrada-Heredia v. Holder, No. 12-cv-1157 SRN/SER,
2012 WL 4839113 (D. Minn. Sept. 25, 2012), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 12-cv-1157 SRN/SER, 2012 ...