Klakulak v. Bureau of Prisons
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 1) Sandra Butler, Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution in Manchester, Kentucky, is SUBSTITUTED as the Respondent in this proceeding; 2) Petitioner Klakulaks petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Record No. 1] is DENIED; 3)This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Courts docket; 4)A final and appealable Judgment shall be entered this date. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 12/21/2016.(RC)cc: COR, paper copy to pro se filer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
JOSEPH M. KLAKULAK,
SANDRA BUTLER, Warden,
Civil Action No. 6: 16-224-DCR
*** *** *** ***
Joseph Klakulak is an inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Manchester, Kentucky. Proceeding without an attorney, Klakulak has filed a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 [Record No. 1] Klakulak states
that, in February 2015, he was sentenced to a 30-month term of imprisonment. After
arriving at FCI - Manchester, BOP staff allegedly advised Klakulak that he was eligible for
placement in a Residential Reentry Center (“RRC”), or “halfway house,” for the last 90
days of his sentence. Klakulak contends that, without explanation, when the BOP made
this determination, it did not consider the five factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) “in
good faith,” did not evaluate those factors on individualized basis, and abused its discretion
when determining the length of his halfway house placement. [Record No. 1 at 1-3]
The Court will substitute Sandra Butler, Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution in
Manchester, Kentucky, as the respondent in this proceeding. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,
435 (2004) (for challenges to present physical confinement, the only proper respondent to habeas
corpus petition is the warden of the facility where the petitioner is confined).
Klakulak filed an inmate grievance regarding this matter in April 2016. In his
extensive response, the warden explained that the BOP had conducted two separate
evaluations regarding Klakulak’s RRC placement in October 2015 and again in March
2016. In each instance, the BOP considered Klakulak’s specific circumstances when
applying the factors set forth in § 3621(b) and concluded that a 90-day placement was
warranted. Specifically, the warden noted that Klakulak owned a home, was married, had
a business degree, had strong ties in the community, and had an established employment
history. [Record No. 1-1 at 1-11] Klakulak’s appeal to the regional office was denied. He
indicates that the BOP’s Central Office had not provided a decision within the time period
permitted by 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. [Record No. 1-1 at 12-18]
The Court conducts an initial review of habeas corpus petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 2243;
Alexander v. Northern Bureau of Prisons, 419 F. App’x 544, 545 (6th Cir. 2011). A
petition will be denied “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts (applicable to § 2241 petitions pursuant to Rule 1(b)). The
Court evaluates ABC’s petition under a more lenient standard because he is not represented
by an attorney. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). At this stage of the
proceedings, the Court accepts the petitioner’s factual allegations as true and construes all
legal claims in his favor. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).
The Second Chance Act of 2007 increased the maximum term of halfway house
placement for a federal prisoner from six to twelve months. It requires that the BOP
evaluate each prisoner individually to ensure that such placement is “of sufficient duration
to provide the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the community.” 18
U.S.C. § 3624(c)(6)(C). BOP regulations utilize the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)
when making placement decisions. 28 C.F.R. § 570.22. In addition, 42 U.S.C. § 17541
incentivizes federal inmates to participate in BOP Inmate Skills Development programs by
giving the BOP the discretion to consider a longer halfway house placement for
participants. 42 U.S.C. § 17541(a)(2)(A).
Klakulak’s assertion that the BOP’s placement decision is contrary to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3621(b) suggests, at most, a claim that its decision was “arbitrary and capricious” in
violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)-(C). However, the
BOP’s determinations regarding halfway house placement are expressly insulated from
judicial review under the APA. 28 U.S.C. § 3625 (“The provisions of sections 554 and
555 and 701 through 706 of title 5, United States Code, do not apply to the making of any
determination, decision, or order under this subchapter.”). Cf. Woodard v. Quintana, No.
5:15-307-KKC, 2015 WL 7185478, at *5-6 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 13, 2015).
Additionally, the Court’s review is limited to determining whether the BOP abused
its discretion when making its placement decision. Vasquez v. Strada, 684 F. 3d 431, 434
(3d Cir. 2012). In its decision to place Klakulak in a halfway house for up to 90 days, the
BOP noted Klakulak’s home ownership, marriage, strong community ties, advanced
education, and employment history. All of these factors are relevant under § 3621(b).
[Record No. 1-1 at 1-11] The record amply establishes that the BOP did not abuse its
discretion in determining the period of Klakulak’s halfway house placement. Wilson v.
Strada, 474 F. App’x 46, 48-49 (3d Cir. 2012) (no abuse of discretion where BOP expressly
considered § 3621(b) factors); Galvin v. Sepanek, No. 12-CV-119-HRW, 2014 WL
4230467, at *3-4 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 25, 2014) (“analyzing Galvin’s eligibility for RRC
placement in accordance with § 3621(b) was all that the BOP was required to do ...”).
Based on the foregoing analysis, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
Sandra Butler, Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution in Manchester,
Kentucky, is SUBSTITUTED as the Respondent in this proceeding.
Petitioner Klakulak’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 [Record No. 1] is DENIED.
This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s docket.
A final and appealable Judgment shall be entered this date.
This 21st day of December, 2016.
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?