Hanley v. LeJeune

1

Shane Eric Hanley, Petitioner, v. Warden LeJeune Warden of FCI Sandstone, Respondent.

No. 23-cv-63 (JMB/TNL)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

April 24, 2024

Shane Eric Hanley, Reg. No. 16721-040, FCI Sandstone, (pro se Petitioner); and

Ana H Voss and Kristen Elise Rau, Assistant United States Attorneys, (for Respondent).

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Tony N. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on pro se Petitioner Shane Eric Hanley's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). See Pet., ECF No. 1. This matter has been referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation to the district court, the Honorable Jeffrey M. Bryan, District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and D. Minn. LR 72.1.

Based upon the record, memoranda, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Petition be DENIED AS MOOT, and this matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

II. BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

Petitioner commenced this action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. See generally Pet. Prior to this action, Petitioner was found guilty of possession of images of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), (b)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 2256. See Ex. B to Declaration of Matthew Apple, ECF No. 13. Petitioner is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota (“FCI Sandstone”) where he is serving a 188-month term of imprisonment, followed by a 20-year term of supervision. Id.; see Pet. at 3. Petitioner was also sentenced to pay $17,769.00 in restitution. See Ex. C to Apple Decl. Petitioner's restitution payments were ordered by the sentencing court to be paid:

in minimum quarterly installments of $25.00 based on IFRP participation, or minimum monthly installments of $20.00 based on UNICOR earnings, during the period of incarceration, to commence 60 days after the date of this judgment. Any balance due upon commencement of supervision shall be paid, during the term of supervision, in minimum monthly installments of $100.00 to commence 60 days after release from imprisonment.

Id. at 6. While incarcerated, Petitioner has been participating in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”). See Ex. F to Apple Decl.

“The [BOP] encourages each sentenced inmate to meet his [ ] legitimate financial obligations” through the IFRP. 28 C.F.R. § 545.10. The BOP must help develop financial plans with inmates who have financial obligations. See Cervantes v. Cruz, No. 07-4738 (DWF/JJK), 2009 WL 76685, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 8, 2009) (citing 28 C.F.R. § 545.11). Financial obligations generally include fines, court costs, restitution, special assessments, child support, and outstanding judgments. See 28 C.F.R. § 545.11(a)(1)-(5). The BOP uses the following calculation to develop an inmate's financial plan:

the unit team shall first subtract from the trust fund account the inmate's minimum payment schedule for UNICOR or non-UNICOR work assignments, set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. The unit team shall then exclude from its assessment $75.00 a month deposited into the inmate's trust fund account. This $75.00 is excluded to allow the inmate the opportunity to better maintain telephone communication under the Inmate Telephone System (ITS).

28 C.F.R. § 545.11(b). Therefore, the BOP's policy Program Statement 5380.08 uses the following summarized calculation to determine the appropriate IFRP payment amount at each program review: “determine the total funds deposited into the inmate's trust fund account for the previous six months; subtract the IFRP payments made by the inmate during the previous six months; and subtract $450 (i.e., $75 x 6 months, ITS exclusion).” Ex. A at 7 to Apple Decl. According to Program Statement 5380.08, “[a]ny money remaining after the above computation may be considered for IFRP payments, regardless of whether the money is in the inmate's trust fund or phone credit account.” Id. An inmate's unit team “has the discretion to consider all monies above that computation to adjust the inmate's IFRP payment plan.” Id. Whereas the unit manager “is the determining authority when it comes to deciding whether an inmate's IFRP payments are commensurate with his[ ] ability to pay.” Id. The unit manager also has discretionary decision-making authority, decided on a case-by-case basis. Id.

“Participation in the IFRP is not mandatory.” Cervantes, 2009 WL 76685, at *3; see also 28 C.F.R. § 545.11(d). If an inmate refuses to participate in the IFRP, then that inmate will be placed in refuse status. See Ex. A at 13 to Apple Decl.; 28 C.F.R. § 545.11(d).

Non-participation results in “not be[ing] considered for various program privileges, such as furloughs, outside work details, and community-based programs” as well as being subjected “to a lower housing status (dormitory, double bunking, etc.) and a spending limit in the commissary.” Cervantes, 2009 WL 76685, at *3; see also 28 C.F.R. § 545.11(d)(1)-(11) (listing the effects of non-participation in the IFRP).

In January 2020, Petitioner agreed to participate in the IFRP by signing a IFRP contract consenting to pay $25.00 per quarter towards his restitution. See Ex. F to Apple Decl. At the start of 2022, a significant amount of media coverage of high-profile inmates revealed that some high-profile inmates with large sums of money in their trust fund accounts were paying only the minimum amounts towards their financial obligations through their IFRP contracts. See Apple Decl. ¶ 13. This media coverage triggered the BOP to conduct an audit of inmate trust fund accounts and IFRP payment amounts. Id. The North Central Regional Office notified FCI Sandstone (where Petitioner is incarcerated) of the inmates at FCI Sandstone that required a reassessment of their IFRP contracts. Id.

Per the Regional Office's direction, FCI Sandstone notified inmates through an inmate bulletin on IFRP changes that their IFRP contracts could be adjusted if their IFRP contracts were found to not be commensurate after considering all the remaining funds pursuant to the formula outlined in Program Statement 5380.08 and 28 C.F.R. § 545.11. See Ex. D to Apple Decl.; See also Pet. at 8; Pet'r's Mem. in Supp. at 8, ECF No. 2. The inmate bulletin also contains notice that if inmates refuse to agree to a new IFRP contract, the BOP will place such inmates in refusal status subject to additional consequences as outlined in Program Statement 5380.08 as well as an encumbrance to ensure funds are not depleted by an inmate in refusal status. See Exs. D-E to Apple Decl. According to Program Statement 4500.12, “[a]n encumbrance may be made for various reasons (e.g.[,] to ensure inmates do not seriously deplete their funds before release, disciplinary measures, inmate's request, claims). Encumbrances are at the Warden's discretion or the result of a disciplinary hearing sanction or notification of a pending Federal court order.” Ex. E at 14 to Apple Decl.

Petitioner's IFRP contract was flagged by the Regional Office for review by the BOP. See Apple Decl. ¶ 18. Therefore, the BOP applied the formula below per Program Statement 5380.08 and 28 C.F.R. § 545.11 to determine Petitioner's remaining funds for IFRP payments:

Total funds deposited 8/24/2021-2/24/2022

$711.80

Less IFRP payments during previous six months

- $50.00

Less $450 for the ITS exclusion

- $450.00

Remaining funds

$211.80

See Apple Decl. ¶ 19; Ex. H to Apple Decl see also Ex. A to Apple Decl. As a result of the $211.80 remaining funds for consideration, Petitioner agreed to pay on February 24, 2022, $36.20 per month towards his restitution instead of the $25.00 quarterly payments he had been paying under his previous IFRP contract. See Ex. G to Apple Decl. Petitioner made three monthly payments of $36.20 in March, April, and May of 2022, See Ex. H at 5-6 to Apple Decl., until he signed a new IFRP contract on May 15, 2022, agreeing to pay $25.00 per quarter towards his restitution. See Ex. I to Apple Decl. Later, in early January 2023, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. See generally Pet.

In his Petition, Petitioner asserts that the BOP violated his procedural and substantive due process rights as well as the Administrative Procedure Act when the BOP adjusted his IFRP payments outside of his program review period. See Pet. at 3, 7-9; Pet'r's Mem. in Supp. at 6, 8-11, 13-14. Petitioner further challenges the BOP's decision to subject inmates in refusal status to an encumbrance pursuant to the inmate bulletin on IFRP changes. See Pet. at 8, Pet'r's Mem. in Supp. at 6, 8. Petitioner requests declaratory and injunctive relief as well as recovery of the $108.60 he paid during the three months he agreed to make monthly payments in the amount $36.20 towards his restitution under the IFRP contract he signed in February 2022 because of the inmate bulletin on IFRP changes. See Pet. at 9; Pet'r's Mem. in Supp. at 5-6, 15, 19; see also Motion to Amend Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2) at 1, ECF No. 23^[1]; Pet'r's Supp. Reply, ECF No. 40.

Respondent opposes the Petition. Respondent asks this Court to dismiss the Petition for three reasons: (1) the BOP properly exercised its authority in adjusting Petitioner's IFRP payments from $25.00 per quarter to $36.20 per month; (2) Petitioner's claim with respect to his February 24, 2022 IFRP contract is now moot; and (3) any alleged noncompliance with the BOP's Program Statement 5380.08 does not constitute a viable procedural and substantive due process violation. See Resp't's Resp. to Pet. at...