Giffen v. Warden Federal Medical Center Rochester
Filing
11
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The R&R [ECF No. 6] is adopted in its entirety; 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus [ECF No. 1] is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; 3. The motion to waive or strike filing fees [ECF No. 3] is denied; 4. The motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 4] is denied; and 5. The motion for immediate release [ECF No. 5] is denied. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge David S. Doty on 1/27/2025. (KAD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CIVIL NO. 25-86(DSD/DJF)
Todd Giffen,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
Warden Federal Medical Center
Rochester,
Defendant.
This
matter
is
before
the
court
upon
the
report
and
recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster
dated January 10, 2025 (R&R).
In the R&R, the magistrate judge
determined that plaintiff Todd Giffen’s peitition for writ of
habeas corpus should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Giffen
is a civil detainee at FMC-Rochester.
In his petition, he claims
that the conditions of his confinement are too restrictive, and he
seeks transfer to another facility.
He does not challenge the
legality of his confinement.
Giffen timely filed objections to the R&R.
The court reviews
de novo any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are
made.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c).
Giffen argues, much as he
did before the magistrate judge, that he is entitled to be housed
in a facility that is less restrictive than FMC-Rochester.
But,
as stated in the R&R, a litigant cannot challenge his conditions
of confinement through a habeas petition.
See Spencer v. Haynes,
774 F.3d 467, 469-70 (8th Cir. 2014); Krueger v. Erickson, 77 F.3d
1071, 1073 (8th Cir. 1996).
The
court
therefore
overrules
Giffen’s
objections.
Accordingly, based on the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
The R&R [ECF No. 6] is adopted in its entirety;
2.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus [ECF No. 1] is
dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction;
3.
The motion to waive or strike filing fees [ECF No. 3] is
denied;
4.
The motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 4] is denied; and
5.
The motion for immediate release [ECF No. 5] is denied.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: January 27, 2025
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?