Cheng v. Rardin

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota March 25, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Sheng-Wen Cheng, File No. 23-cv-2852 (ECT/DJF)

Petitioner,

v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
Warden Jared Rardin,

Respondent.
________________________________________________________________________
Petitioner Sheng-Wen Cheng commenced this action pro se by filing a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 1. After pleading guilty to four counts of fraud, Mr.
Cheng was sentenced to seventy-two months of imprisonment, followed by three years of
supervised release and removal from the United States. See United States v. Cheng, No.
21-cr-261-RA (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2021) at ECF Nos. 33–34. Mr. Cheng’s habeas petition
challenges the Bureau of Prison’s finding that Mr. Cheng is ineligible for placement in a
Residential Reentry Center (“RRC”). ECF No. 1 at 3. Mr. Cheng also filed a request for
this Court to order the Respondent to show cause why his petition should not be granted.
ECF No. 18.
The case is now before the Court on a Report and Recommendation issued by
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster. ECF No. 19. Magistrate Judge Foster recommends
denying Mr. Cheng’s petition for several reasons. First, the challenge is premature because
Mr. Cheng is entitled to at most twelve months in RRC, and he has about eighteen months
remaining in custody. Id. at 4–5; see also Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Find an Inmate,
https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited Mar. 22, 2024) (indicating Mr. Cheng’s
release date is September 27, 2025). Second, courts in this District have repeatedly held
that the Bureau of Prisons has exclusive authority to determine placement of prisoners and

such decisions are not subject to judicial review. R. & R. at 5; see also Garcia v. Eischen,
No. CV 22-444 (SRN/BRT),

2022 WL 4084185

 (D. Minn. Aug. 16, 2022), report and 
recommendation adopted, No. 22-CV-444 (SRN/BRT),

2022 WL 4080751

 (D. Minn. Sept. 
6, 2022).  Third, a habeas petition is not the appropriate vehicle to challenge a prisoner’s 
conditions or place of confinement.  R. & R. at 6–7; see also Fiorito v. Fikes, No. 22-cv-

0749 (PJS/TNL),

2022 WL 16699472

, at *3 (D. Minn. Nov. 3, 2022), aff’d, No. 23-1006,

2023 WL 4841966

 (8th Cir. July 28, 2023).                                 
Mr. Cheng filed objections to the Report and Recommendation and two exhibits.  
ECF Nos. 30–31.  Respondent filed a very short response to the objections, confirming 
Respondent’s  view  that  the  Report  and  Recommendation  “should  be  adopted  in  its 

entirety.”  ECF No. 32.  Because Mr. Cheng has objected, the Court is required to review 
the Report and Recommendation de novo pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1) and Local 
Rule 72.2(b)(3).  The Court has undertaken that de novo review and has concluded that 
Magistrate Judge Foster’s analysis and conclusions are correct.           
Therefore, based upon all of the files, records, and proceedings in the above-

captioned matter, IT IS ORDERED THAT:                                     
1.   Petitioner  Sheng-Wen  Cheng’s  Objections  to  the  Report  and 
Recommendation [ECF No. 30] are OVERRULED.                                
2.   The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 19] is ACCEPTED.         
3.   Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief under

28 U.S.C. § 2241

 [ECF 
No. 1] is DENIED.                                                         
4.   Petitioner’s Motion to Order the Respondent to Show Cause [ECF No. 18] is 

DENIED.                                                                   
5.   This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice.                     
       LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                          


Dated:  March 25, 2024        s/ Eric C. Tostrud                          
                         Eric C. Tostrud                             
                         United States District Court