SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung, dated October 21, 2011 [Doc. No. 11]. Petitioner filed timely objections to the R&R [Doc. No. 12].
According to statute, the Court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's opinion to which specific objections are made and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). Based on that de novo review and for the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R&R.
Petitioner Bania is currently an inmate incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota. (Declaration of Angela Buege ("Buege Decl.") ¶ 3, Attach. A, Public Information Data [Doc. No. 8].) Bania is serving a 40-month sentence, followed by two years of supervised release for conspiracy to embezzle/steal property from a labor organization, theft from a labor organization, and mail fraud. (
On September 21, 2010, Bania requested that he be immediately transferred to a Residential Reentry Center ("RRC"). Pursuant to the Second Chance Act of 2007 ("SCA"), Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") unit staff reviewed the request and found that 150-180 days of RRC placement was appropriate and would allow Bania the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the community. (Beuge Decl. ¶ 6, Attach. B, Review for RRC [Doc. No. 8].) Bania appealed the decision; however, his requests for immediate placement at an RRC were denied at each level of the BOP administrative remedies program. (Buege Decl. ¶ 7, Attach. C, Administrative Remedy Generalized Retrieval Data Form [Doc. No. 8].)
Bania filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on April 14, 2011, challenging the BOP's RRC placement decision and the BOP's failure to provide incentives for skills development program participation. The Petition originally asserted three claims: (1) that the unit team failed to engage in an individualized assessment using the five factors from 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) when evaluating the RRC transfer request; (2) that the unit team incorrectly applied the limitation of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) to Program Statement 7310.04; and (3) that the BOP failed to provide prisoner incentives to participate in skills development programs as mandated under 42 U.S.C. § 17541(a)(1)(G). (Petition, No. 9-Ground 1 [Doc. No. 1].)
In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Leung rejected Bania's arguments, finding that the BOP provided Bania with the individualized RRC placement determination required by the SCA and that the BOP appropriately provided an incentive for participation in skills development programs by simply considering an extended RRC placement. In his Objection to the R&R, Bania takes issue with the R&R's finding that "the BOP provides an incentive for skills participation programs if it considers awarding longer RRC placement than it would award absent completion of a skills development program." (Pet'r Obj. at 4 [Doc. No. 12]) (quoting R&R at 14 [Doc. No. 11]) (emphasis in original). Essentially, Petitioner argues that incentive awards are to be awarded in addition to placement under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). (
(Pet'r Obj. at 4-5 [Doc. No. 12].)
As Magistrate Judge Leung found, the BOP correctly performed an individualized review of Bania's request for an immediate transfer to an RRC. The SCA mandates an individualized evaluation of five factors when determining RRC placement for a federal prisoner: (1) the resources of the facility contemplated; (2) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (3) the history and characteristics of the inmate; (4) any statement by the sentencing court concerning the purposes for which the sentence to imprisonment was determined to be warranted or recommending a type of penal or correctional facility as appropriate; and (5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). Bania maintains that the assessment process was not individualized because the BOP failed to exercise its discretion and consider his particular circumstances. He contends that Section 3624(c) grants the BOP the authority to place inmates in an RRC at any time during incarceration. (Pet'r Obj. at 1-2, 5 [Doc. No. 12]).
As noted in the R&R, when considering a prisoner for RRC placement, it is not necessary that the BOP perform a detailed analysis of the placement factors under the SCA.
Here, as detailed in the R&R, the record indicates that the BOP did in fact conduct an appropriate individualized assessment as required by the SCA for RRC placement.
The R&R also properly found no grounds for habeas relief as to Bania's claim that the BOP violated its own Program Statement. Bania asserts that pursuant to Program Statement 7310.04, the BOP must consider his "individual needs and existing community resources" when making an RRC placement decision. (Pet'r Obj. at 2 [Doc. No. 12]). Specifically, Bania argues that Program Statement 7310.04 (9) requires the unit team to consider his medical condition of neck cancer and his ability to assume full financial responsibility through Medicare coverage for his own health care expenses if transferred to an RRC. (Petition 5-8). The Program Statement provides:
Program Statement 7310.04 (9)(4).
Bania's claim that the BOP neglected to consider this Program Statement during his evaluation for RRC placement fails on several grounds. First, the form completed by the BOP unit staff indicates that it did consider several medical factors when making an RRC placement decision. (Buege Decl. ¶ 4-6 [Doc. No. 8].) Second, even assuming, arguendo, that the BOP did not engage in an evaluation of these medical considerations, when a BOP Program Statement is not mandated by statute, any deviation from that Program Statement does not constitute a violation of federal law.
The Court finds that the R&R properly found that the BOP did not abuse its discretion with respect to an award of increased RRC placement as an incentive under 42 U.S.C. § 17541(a)(1)(G). Bania asserts that the BOP violated 42 U.S.C. § 17541(a)(1)(G) by failing to provide the incentive of maximum time placement in an RRC for participating in skills development programs and requests that the Court "award petitioner an incentive reward . . . for petitioner's participation in the skills development program independent of any RRC placement awarded under § 3621(b)." (Pet'r Obj. at 4-5 [Doc. No. 12].). Bania maintains that simply considering him for maximum placement in an RRC is not an incentive, due to the fact that he is already entitled to consideration for RRC placement under the factors of § 3621(b) of the SCA. In his Objection, Bania argues, "The Court tries in vain to co-mingle a request for additional RRC placement under § 17541(a)(2)(A) and § 17541(a)(2)(B) with RRC placement awarded under § 3621(b). (
Although not cited by Petitioner in support of his argument, the R&R acknowledged that the courts in
A plain language interpretation of this statute supports the BOP's contention that it has discretion to decide whether the maximum allowable period at an RRC can serve as an incentive.
Here, the BOP acknowledged that it considers "increased RRC placement" as an incentive for participation in skills development program, but it performs this evaluation in conjunction with an examination of "the 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), correctional and population management interests." (Petition, Attach. at 10 [Doc. No. 1].) This process in no way violates § 17541, as the statute does not mandate that the BOP make maximum RRC placement an incentive for participating in skills development programs. The Court disagrees with Bania that the BOP's consideration of increased RRC placement is no incentive at all. No statutory requirement exists entitling Bania to a maximum RRC placement of twelve months.
For all of these reasons, as the R&R recommends, the court must dismiss Petitioner's claims with prejudice.