Purdy v. LeJeune

1

Jeffrey Colin Purdy, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. LeJeune, Warden FCI-Sandstone, Respondent.

No. 22-cv-2821 (JRT/ECW)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

July 17, 2023

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT United States Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge on Petitioner Jeffrey Colin Purdy's (“Petitioner” or “Purdy”) Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) (Dkt. 1); Purdy's Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction/Affidavit in Support (“Preliminary Injunction Motion”) (Dkt. 8) Purdy's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Affidavit in Support (“TRO Motion”) (Dkt 26); and Purdy's Motion to Expand the Record/Affidavit in Support (“Motion to Expand Record”) (Dkt. 31). This case has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for decisions on pre-trial matters and to issue a report and recommendation on dispositive motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.1.

I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Purdy was arrested on February 29, 2020 and charged with one count of Cyberstalking in violation of violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2261(b) and 2261A(2). (Dkt. 1-1 at 12^[1]; Dkt. 22 ¶ 3.) He spent most of his pre-trial and pre-sentence detention in Sherburne County Jail, but spent part of April 2021 and August 2021 at the Federal Detention Center in Englewood, Colorado (“FDC-Englewood”). (Dkt. 1-1 at 12.) On December 14, 2021, Purdy was sentenced in the District of Minnesota to 60 months' imprisonment with 3 years of supervised release to follow. (Dkt. 22-1, Resp. Ex. A at 2 (Purdy's Public Information Inmate Data).) Purdy was committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota (“FCI-Sandstone”) on March 2, 2022. (Id.; see also Dkt. 1-1 at 12.) His statutory release date via good conduct time (“GCT”) is June 2, 2024. (Dkt. 22-1 at 1; see also Dkt. 38-2 at 1.)

On November 3, 2022, Purdy filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in this Court against Respondent Michael J. LeJeune (“the Warden”)-the Warden of FCI-Sandstone, where Purdy was incarcerated at the time the Petition was filed (Dkt. 1 at 1) and, based on the BOP's Inmate Locator, is incarcerated as of the date of this Order and Report and Recommendation, see Find an Inmate, available at https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited July 14, 2023). In the Petition, Purdy challenges a “[f]ailure to apply First Step Act [(“FSA”)] Time Credits (including removing ability to earn FSA Time Credits [(“FTC”)] within 18 months of release).” (Dkt. 1 at 2.)

Purdy alleges three grounds in the Petition. Purdy describes Ground One as “Administrative Remedies Exhausted”; Ground Two as “Due process violation”; and Ground Three as “Request to Expedite Briefing/Ruling.” (Id. at 6-7.) Purdy elaborated on each of those Grounds in an attachment to the Petition. (See Dkt. 1-1 at 1-21.) In Ground One, Purdy contends that no relief exists in “the current administrative remedy process,” and as such, “administrative remedies are considered exhausted” due to a lack of “authority” from BOP staff to grant the relief sought in the Petition given the unavailability of “administrative remedy procedures for FTCs.” (Id. at 8-11.) Ground Two asserts that the “BOP is denying Purdy FTC relief Purdy is entitled to under the FSA, in violation of due process.” (Id. at 12-19.) In Ground Three, Purdy asks the Court to “expedite briefing and its ruling on this Petition.” (Id. at 20.)

As his requested relief, Purdy asks the Court to order the BOP to: “(1) Give Purdy all of the FTC's [sic] Purdy is to have earned, as described in Ground^[2], as of the date this 2241 Petition is ruled on (e.g. Nov[ember] 2022-135 FTCs)”; “(2) Apply the FTC's [sic] granted in (1) to Purdy's early release”; “(3) Put Purdy in for the appropriate RRC [residential reentry center]/HC [home confinement]12] time based off the presumptive RRC/HC from presumptive FTCs under the FSA, in addition to Purdy's Second Chance Act RRC/HC (minimum 6 months)” where “[t]he date should be on or around Dec[ember] 3, 2022”; and “(4) Grant any relief the Court deems appropriate if not already stated.” (Id. at 21.)

On December 9, 2022, the Court ordered the Warden to answer the Petition and provided Purdy with the opportunity to file a reply to the answer. (Dkt. 7 ¶¶ 1-3.) The Court also granted “Purdy's request for an expedited briefing and ruling (see, e.g., Dkt. 11 at 20 [Ground Three]) . . . to the extent it is consistent with the above briefing schedule, and otherwise denied” his request.^[3] (Id. ¶¶ 3-4 (capitalization amended).)

On December 14, 2022, Purdy filed the Preliminary Injunction Motion, along with supporting exhibits, seeking transfer to a “halfway house” (which the Court understands means an RRC or similar facility) for the remainder of his sentence. (Dkts. 8, 9.) The Court issued a briefing order on December 16, 2022, ordering the Warden to respond to the Preliminary Injunction Motion by January 4, 2023. (Dkt. 12.) On December 22, 2022, the Court granted the Warden's request to consolidate the briefing schedules in this case, allowing the Warden to file a combined answer to the Petition and response to the Preliminary Injunction Motion by January 4, 2023. (Dkts. 13, 16.) The Warden then sought an additional extension until January 13, 2023 because the BOP was reconfiguring its “automatic time credit calculation program” to implement changes made by Program Statement 5410.01, First Step Act of 2018 - Time Credits: Procedures for Implementation of 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4), and the resulting update was expected to take place the weekend of January 7-8, 2023. (Dkt. 17 ¶ 4.) The Warden asserted this would allow the BOP to submit “a declaration with the updated information necessary to provide the Court with an accurate and appropriate response to the petition and motion.” (Id.) The Court granted the Warden's request for an extension of time to January 13, 2023 to file his consolidated response, noting no further extensions would be allowed absent any extraordinary circumstances. (Dkt. 20.)

On January 13, 2023, the Warden filed a consolidated Response to the Petition and Preliminary Injunction Motion, along with the Declaration of Matthew Apple, a Unit Manager at FCI-Sandstone (“First Apple Declaration”). (Dkts. 21, 22.) Purdy filed a Reply to the Response on February 8, 2023, along with supporting exhibits. (Dkts. 24, 25.) Purdy also filed the TRO Motion on February 8, 2023, as well as a supporting affidavit and exhibits. (Dkts. 26-28.) Purdy asserts in the TRO Motion that the BOP is improperly denying him FTCs, claims the BOP failed to transfer him to an RRC “in violation of due process of the law,” and asks for transfer to a RRC “while the [C]ourt waits to conduct a[n] evidentiary hearing, or grant” the Preliminary Injunction Motion. (Dkt. 26 at 1-3.) On March 3, 2023, the Court ordered the Warden to respond to the TRO Motion by March 17, 2023 and gave Purdy the opportunity to file a reply within 14 days from the time the Warden served the response on him. (Dkt. 30.)

On March 13, 2023, Purdy filed the Motion to Expand Record to include an affidavit attached to the Motion asserting that “Administrative remedies not being available at FCI-Sandstone,” BOP staff had engaged in certain retaliatory acts against Purdy for filing the Petition, and identifying “other concerns.” (Dkt. 31; see also Dkt. 32.)

On March 20, 2023, the Court granted the Warden's request for an extension of time to respond to the TRO Motion. (Dkts. 33, 35.) On March 20, 2023, Respondent filed an Opposition to Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“Response to TRO Motion”), along with another declaration from Unit Manager Apple (“Second Apple Declaration”). (Dkts. 37, 38.) On April 6, 2023, Purdy filed a reply to the Response to TRO Motion, along with supporting documents. (Dkts. 40-43.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. 28 U.S.C. § 2241

For relief to be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Purdy must demonstrate that he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It is well-settled that “[a] necessary predicate for the granting of federal habeas relief [to a petitioner] is a determination by the federal court that [his or her] custody violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2241).

B. FSA Requirements

The FSA was signed into law on December 21, 2018, and provides, among other things that “[n]ot later than 210 days after the date of enactment of this subchapter, the Attorney General . . . shall develop and release publicly on the Department of Justice website a risk and needs assessment system” to be used to “determine the recidivism risk of each prisoner . . . and classify each prisoner as having minimum, low, medium, or high risk for recidivism.” 18 U.S.C. § 3632(a)(1). On July 19, 2019, the Attorney General publicly released a risk and needs assessment system, stating the development of the Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risks and Needs (“PATTERN”), which was updated in January 2020. See The First Step Act of 2018: Risk and Needs Assessment System, U.S. Dep't of Justice Office of the Attorney Gen. (July 19, 2019), www.bop.gov/inmates/fsa/docs/the-first-step-act-of-2018-risk-and-needs-assessment-system.pdf; see also The First Step Act of 2018: Risk and Needs Assessment System -UPDATE, U.S. Dep't of Justice Office of the Attorney Gen. (January 2020), www.bop.gov/inmates/fsa/docs/the-first-step-act-of-2018-risk-and-needs-assessment-system-updated.pdf.

According to the...