Ohlmeier v. Rardin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Todd Allen Ohlmeier,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden Jared Rardin,
Warden at FMC-Rochester,
Respondent.
Case No. 24-cv-04382 (JMB/ECW)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Todd Allen Ohlmeier’s Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. 1). This case has been
referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636
and Local Rule 72.1. For the following reasons, the Court recommends the Petition be
denied.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Ohlmeier was sentenced to a 96-month term of imprisonment for Receipt of Child
Pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) and 2252A(b)(1). (Dkt. 14 ¶ 4; Dkt
14-1 at 2.) He is currently serving his sentence at FMC Rochester. (Dkt. 14 ¶ 3.)
Ohlmeier filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which
was received by the Court on December 5, 2024. (Dkt. 1.) On December 18, 2024, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued a report and recommendation (“December
CASE 0:24-cv-04382-JMB-ECW Doc. 18 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 5

R&R”) that set forth relevant background information for the Petition and its arguments
as follows:
In October 2020, Ohlmeier pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography (in
violation 	of 	18 	U.S.C. 	§ 	2252A(a)(2)). 	U.S. 	District 	Judge 	Rebecca
Goodgame Ebinger later sentenced him to 96 months’ imprisonment. The
original judgment required Ohlmeier to pay two assessments: a $3,000
“AVAA Assessment” under the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography
Victim Assistance Act of 2018, and a $5,000 “JVTA Assessment” under the
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit later reversed the JVTA Assessment, but the AVAA
Assessment remains. See United States v. Ohlmeier, 25 F.4th 571, 574 (8th
Cir. 2022); Am. J. in a Criminal Case 7, United States v. Ohlmeier, No. 20-
CR-0019 (RGE/WPK) (S.D. Iowa Mar. 9, 2022) (“Amended Judgment”).
Ohlmeier 	is 	currently 	incarcerated 	at 	the 	Federal 	Medical 	Center 	in
Rochester, Minnesota (“FMC-Rochester”). Officials at FMC-Rochester are
trying to make Ohlmeier pay $300 per month toward his “‘restitution’
payments,’” including the AVAA Assessment. In response, Ohlmeier filed
the Petition, raising two challenges. First, he argues that the BOP’s efforts to
collect restitution during his incarceration—before supervised release—
constitute unlawful amendments to Judge Ebinger’s judgment. Second, he
contends that his refusal to comply has resulted in the denial of certain “rights
and privileges,” even though he has not been charged with any “rule
violation.” Specifically, he asserts that he cannot “purchase commissary
items” and is “not earning Good Time Credits” due to his refusal.
(Dkt. 6 at 1-2 (citations and footnote omitted).) Judge Leung recommended that the
Petition be denied because Ohlmeier had apparently failed to exhaust administrative
remedies. (Dkt. 6 at 4.) Following Judge Leung’s retirement, this case was reassigned to
the undersigned. (Dkt. 9.) On March 27, 2025, the District Judge declined to adopt the
December R&R in light of new information raised in Petitioner’s Objection (Dkt. 7) and
remanded the case to the undersigned “to consider the clarified factual representations
regarding Ohlmeier’s attempted exhaustion of his administrative remedies at FMC
CASE 0:24-cv-04382-JMB-ECW Doc. 18 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 5

Rochester, and whether those efforts were sufficient to satisfy his obligation to exhaust
available administrative remedies before filing his Petition” (Dkt. 10 at 4).
On April 30, 2025, the undersigned issued an Order and Report and
Recommendation (“April R&R”). (Dkts. 11-12.) 	The undersigned recommended that
Petitioner’s failure to exhaust be partially excused, without prejudice to the Respondent’s
ability to rase additional exhaustion related arguments; that the Petition be denied to the
extent it argues that (1) the BOP’s requirement that he make restitution payments now
violates his sentencing judgment and (2) the BOP’s denial of commissary access at FMC-
Rochester violates his due process rights; and that Respondent be required to respond to
Petitioner’s claim regarding the denial of good conduct time pursuant to 28 C.F.R.
§ 523.20. (Dkts. 11-12.) Respondent filed his response on May 28, 2025, and Petitioner
filed his reply on June 16, 2025. (Dkts. 13, 16.) On July 9, 2025, the District Judge
adopted the April R&R. (Dkt. 17.) The remaining issue of good-conduct time is now
ripe for decision.
II. 	DISCUSSION
In its response, Respondent maintains that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies and provides further information related to the BOP’s
administrative remedy program, in addition to responding to the Petition on the merits.
(See generally Dkt. 13.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that
judicial economy is best served by resolving this matter on the merits, rather than on the
question of administrative exhaustion.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b):
CASE 0:24-cv-04382-JMB-ECW Doc. 18 Filed 04/02/26 Page 3 of 5

a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year other
than a term of imprisonment for the duration of the prisoner’s life, may
receive credit toward the service of the prisoner’s sentence, of up to 54 days
for each year of the prisoner’s sentence imposed by the court, subject to
determination by the Bureau of Prisons that, during that year, the prisoner
has 	displayed 	exemplary 	compliance 	with 	institutional 	disciplinary
regulations. Subject to paragraph (2), if the Bureau determines that, during
that year, the prisoner has not satisfactorily complied with such institutional
regulations, the prisoner shall receive no such credit toward service of the
prisoner’s 	sentence 	or 	shall 	receive 	such 	lesser 	credit 	as 	the 	Bureau
determines to be appropriate.
18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1). The Petition asserted that Respondent denied Petitioner “Good
Time Credits” as a result of his failure to pay restitution. (Dkt. 1 at 6.) The Court
understands Petitioner’s reference to “Good Time Credits” to mean good-conduct time
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b).
However, Respondent asserts that Petitioner has not lost any credits as a result of
his conduct with respect to restitution. (Dkt. 13 at 6.) Respondent submitted evidence
that the only good-conduct time credits that Petitioner has ever lost resulted from an
incident in November 2021, in which Petitioner was found responsible for destroying
government property, including trying to break a sprinkler. (Dkt. 14 ¶ 6; Dkts. 14-2, 14-
3.) The Petition did not challenge this disallowance of good-conduct time based on this
incident or any other incident.
Petitioner’s reply memorandum does not rebut Respondent’s evidence showing
that he was not disallowed good-conduct time for failing to pay restitution. In fact, the
reply makes no mention of good-conduct time at all, and instead repeats Petitioner’s
arguments related to his dismissed claims. (See generally Dkt. 16.) Given Petitioner’s
failure to rebut the clear evidence provided by Respondent, the Court concludes that no
CASE 0:24-cv-04382-JMB-ECW Doc. 18 Filed 04/02/26 Page 4 of 5

evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve the question of whether Petitioner has been
improperly disallowed good conduct time for failing to pay restitution, as alleged in the
Petition. See Wallace v. Lockhart, 701 F.2d 719, 730 (8th Cir. 1983) (holding that a
habeas petition may be dismissed without an evidentiary hearing where the dispute can
be resolved on the basis of the record). Accordingly, the Court recommends denial of
Petitioner’s remaining claim.
III. 	RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
RECOMMENDED THAT Petitioner Todd Allen Ohlmeier’s Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. 1) be DENIED.
Dated: April 2, 2026 	s/Elizabeth Cowan Wright
ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: The Report and Recommendation component of this Order and
Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is
therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those
objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. See Local
Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits
set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
.
CASE 0:24-cv-04382-JMB-ECW Doc. 18 Filed 04/02/26 Page 5 of 5