Patrick Thelen v. James Cross, Jr., et al
Filing
Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. In addition to receiving a strike for filing this appeal, see 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), we order Thelen to pay a sanction of $500; until he pays that fine, the clerks of the federal courts of this circuit are hereby ORDERED, as provided in Support Systems International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995), to return unfiled any papers in civil litigation that Thelen submits to these courts. AFFIRMED. Diane P. Wood, Chief Judge; Ilana Diamond Rovner, Circuit Judge and David F. Hamilton, Circuit Judge. Sent Certified Mail. Receipt Number: 70123460000090608455. [6770127-1] [6770127] [15-3665, 16-1207]
Case: 15-3665
Document: 22
Filed: 07/25/2016
Pages: 3
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted July 22, 2016*
Decided July 25, 2016
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
Nos. 15‐3665 & 16‐1207
PATRICK THELEN,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v.
JAMES CROSS, JR., et al.,
Defendants‐Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
No. 15‐cv‐116‐MJR
Michael J. Reagan,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Invoking Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the
Administrative Procedures Act, Patrick Thelen, a federal inmate, seeks damages on two
claims. First he wants compensation for serving an allegedly unconstitutional sentence,
even though courts have repeatedly rejected his collateral attacks. Second he argues that,
by not providing him with a copy of the Federal Register, the warden prevented him
* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument
is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP.
P. 34(a)(2)(C).
Case: 15-3665
Document: 22
Filed: 07/25/2016
Pages: 3
Nos. 15‐3665 & 16‐1207
Page 2
from commenting on a proposed rule change. The district court dismissed the complaint
at screening for failure to state a claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. These appeals are frivolous.
Thelen may not seek damages for his sentence without first having it vacated through a
proper collateral attack, and the lack of a copy of the Federal Register produced no
cognizable injury. We therefore affirm the judgments.
We start with the claim about the Federal Register. Thelen alleges that because
Warden Cross failed to get him a complete copy of the Federal Register, the warden
deprived him of a chance to comment on a proposed amendment to the Sentencing
Guidelines. The amendment lowered the base offense level for drug offenses such as
Thelen’s. Thelen speculates that, if he had received a chance to comment, the Sentencing
Commission might have reduced the base offense level even further. The warden’s
failure, Thelen contends, violated his rights under the Administrative Procedures Act,
5 U.S.C. §§ 551–59, and the Due Process Clause.
The district court correctly ruled that Thelen’s alleged lack of access to the Federal
Register did not state a claim for damages against the warden under the APA. The
Sentencing Commission is subject to the notice‐and‐comment requirements of 5 U.S.C.
§ 553. See 28 U.S.C. § 994(x); Washington Legal Found. v. U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 17 F.3d
1446, 1450 (D.C. Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Maiello, 805 F.3d 992, 998 (11th Cir.
2015); United States v. Tercero, 734 F.3d 979, 984 (9th Cir. 2013). Section 553 requires the
Sentencing Commission to publish proposed rule changes in the Federal Register and
solicit comments from the public. But Thelen does not accuse the Sentencing Commission
of disregarding the APA; rather, he complains that he was not personally provided notice
about the proposed rule changes. He blames the warden—a person working for another
agency, the Bureau of Prisons—for not providing the notice. The APA, however, does not
obligate one agency to give notice of the proposed rule changes of another agency; notice
by the promulgating agency suffices. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–53. In any event, the APA does not
authorize damages against a representative, such as the warden, of an agency. 5 U.S.C.
§ 702; Veluchamy v. F.D.I.C., 706 F.3d 810, 815 (7th Cir. 2013); City of Evansville, Ind. v.
Kentucky Liquid Recycling, Inc., 604 F.2d 1008, 1014 (7th Cir. 1979).
Thelen fares no better under his due process theory. We may assume that he could
not comment on the proposed amendments without a copy of the Federal Register. The
problem is that he suffered no loss of liberty. Any changes to the guidelines, even the
ones Thelen wanted to advocate, could only restore his liberty by giving him a chance to
reduce his sentence; no changes could (or did) retroactively increase his sentence.
See Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 28–29 (1981) (ex post facto clause prohibits government
from enacting any law that retrospectively imposes greater punishment than that
Case: 15-3665
Document: 22
Filed: 07/25/2016
Pages: 3
Nos. 15‐3665 & 16‐1207
Page 3
assigned by law when offense occurred); United States v. Diggs, 768 F.3d 643, 645–46 (7th
Cir. 2014) (same); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 828 (2010) (no constitutional
right to reduced punishment for past crime). Thus the warden did not deny him liberty
without due process.
We turn to Thelen’s second claim. He argues that recent cases have undermined his
1997 convictions and sentence for drug crimes. He seeks damages from Warden Cross,
the director of the Bureau of Prisons, and the Attorney General because they have not
endeavored to shorten his incarceration. This is a meritless contention. While 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) gives the director of the Bureau of Prisons discretion to ask the district court
for a sentence reduction, there is no authority requiring any of these defendants to
advocate for a reduction in an inmate’s sentence. In any event, any claim for damages is
premature. Before Thelen can seek damages under a claim (such as this one) that, if
successful, would necessarily imply that his incarceration is invalid, he must first
successfully obtain collateral relief from his conviction and sentence, such as through a
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). Thelen
has tried and failed to obtain such relief. In addition to two motions under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, he has challenged his sentence five times under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; courts have
dismissed all challenges. See Thelen v. United States, 131 F. App’x 61 (6th Cir. 2005); Thelen
v. Oklahoma, 396 F. App’x 489 (10th Cir. 2010); In re Thelen, No. 10‐2317 (6th Cir. 2011);
see also Thelen v. Sherrod, No. 10‐cv‐418‐MJR (S.D. Ill. Sept. 7, 2010); Thelen v. Cross,
No. 10‐3268 (7th Cir. July 11, 2011); Thelen v. Cross, No. 14‐1298 (7th Cir. April 10, 2014);
Thelen v. Cross, No. 14‐3434 (7th Cir. Mar. 24, 2015); Thelen v. Cross, No. 14‐cv‐247‐DRH
(S.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 2014). Thelen has also filed a motion to reduce his sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and a federal defender recently was appointed to assist him. United
States v. Thelen, No. 97‐cr‐20015‐RHC (E.D. Mich. 1997), ECF Nos. 132, 137.
This appeal is frivolous. We have previously warned Thelen that pursuing frivolous
litigation may result in monetary fines or a filing bar. See Thelen v. Cross, No. 14‐3434 (7th
Cir. Mar. 24, 2015) (“We caution Thelen that submitting frivolous papers to this court will
result in a fine. Alexander v. United States, 121 F.3d 312, 315 (7th Cir. 1997)”). He has
ignored that warning. Therefore, in addition to receiving a strike for filing this appeal,
see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), we order Thelen to pay a sanction of $500; until he pays that fine,
the clerks of the federal courts of this circuit are hereby ORDERED, as provided in Support
Systems International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995), to return unfiled any papers
in civil litigation that Thelen submits to these courts.
AFFIRMED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?