Skrzypek v. Roal
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopting 16 Report and Recommendation; denying as moot 10 Petitioner's Emergency Motion. The Petition 1 is DISMISSED with prejudice (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 11/17/2011. (TLU)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
James R. Skrzypek,
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
Civil No. 11-933 ADM/SER
Warden Wendy J. Roal,
Respondent.
James R. Skrzypek, pro se.
D. Gerald Wilhelm, Esq., and Gregory G. Brooker, Esq., United States Attorney’s Office,
Minneapolis, MN, for Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for consideration of
Petitioner James R. Skrzypek’s (“Skrzypek”) Response to Report and Recommendation [Docket
No. 19] (“Objection”), apparently objecting to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau’s October 12,
2011 Report & Recommendation [Docket No. 16] (“R&R”). Judge Rau’s R&R recommends
dismissing Skrzypek’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket No. 1] (“Petition”) with
prejudice. Skrzypek also filed an Emergency Motion for Order Directing Respondent to File
Informal Resolution Form [Docket No. 10] (“Emergency Motion”), which the R&R recommends
denying as moot. Based on a de novo review of the record, Skrzypek’s Objection is overruled
and the R&R is adopted.
II. BACKGROUND
In 2005, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois sentenced
Skrzypek to a 90-month incarceration, five years of supervised release, and restitution. See
Decl. of Julie Groteboer [Docket No. 6] (“Groteboer Decl.”) ¶ 3. Skrzypek was incarcerated at
the Duluth Federal Prison Camp when he commenced this action. Id. Skrzypek’s good conduct
release time was November 14, 2011, and he was apparently released on that date. See
Objection 2–3.
On April 9, 2010, Skrzypek was reviewed for halfway house placement under the Second
Chance Act of 2007, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) (“SCA”). Groteboer Decl. ¶ 4. Staff made an initial
recommendation to the Community Corrections Manager’s (“CCM”) Office that Skrzypek be
given 180 days of Residential Reentry Center (“RRC”) placement, id., but that recommendation
was contingent upon Warden and CCM approval. Decl. of David Baker [Docket No. 7] (“Baker
Decl.”) ¶ 3. On February 4, 2011, Skrzypek learned that his RRC placement recommendation
had been decreased to 120–150 days and he expressed to the Associate Warden Ward (“AW
Ward”) his desire of receiving the initially recommended 180 days. Pet. Ex. A 2–3. Unit
Manager Baker met with Skrzypek to explain that although 180 days had initially been
recommended, the Warden had discretion over the final decision. Baker Decl. ¶ 4. After the
meeting, Baker sent an email dated February 11, 2011, which stated in its entirety, “This issue
was informally resolved.” Groteboer Decl. Attach. D.
In March 2011, Skrzypek reviewed the 120–150 day RRC recommendation and signed
his RRC paperwork acknowledging the 147-day RRC placement to begin June 21, 2011. Baker
Decl. ¶ 6. Skrzypek filed an administrative remedy on March 17, 2011, seeking to restore the
180-day initial recommendation; Warden Roal denied Skrzypek’s request. Groteboer Decl. ¶ 7.
On April 4, 2011, Skrzypek executed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
seeking a court order directing the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to enforce an alleged informal
2
dispute resolution agreement to 180 days of RRC placement. Pet. at 5. Skrzypek filed his
habeas corpus petition before he had received an answer from the regional office; he also failed
to appeal to the BOP Central Office. Groteboer Decl. Attach. F, G.
On June 21, 2011, Skrzypek was released to a halfway house in Chicago. Objection 2.
During that time, Skrzypek’s motion for a time extension in responding to the R&R was granted
by this Court. Oct. 25, 2011 Order [Docket No. 18]. On November 14, 2011, the same day
Skrzypek was apparently released from the Chicago halfway house, this Court received
Skrzypek’s Objection to the R&R.
III. DISCUSSION
After a de novo review, the Court adopts Judge Rau’s R&R. Skrzypek’s habeas corpus
petition is denied because Skrzypek’s claim is moot, he failed to exhaust administrative
remedies, and the BOP acted lawfully and within its discretion in assessing his RRC placement
under the SCA.
The U.S. Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to deciding live “cases” and
“controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III., § 2, cl. 1. When a case fails to present a live case or
controversy, one which can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision, it is moot and the
federal court lacks jurisdiction over the action. Keating v. Neb. Pub. Power Dist., 562 F.3d 923,
927 (8th Cir. 2009); Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). RRC appeals are moot after an
inmate has been transferred to that RRC. Miller v. Whitehead, 527 F.3d 752, 756 (8th Cir. 2008)
(finding RRC placement issue moot when the relief sought was already granted); see also
Mickelson v. Holinka, 276 Fed. Appx. 527, 527 (8th Cir. 2008) (dismissing RRC appeal as moot
after prisoner released to halfway house). Because Skrzypek was at a halfway house when the
3
R&R was filed and is now on release, his habeas petition is moot and his Objection overruled.
Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a requirement of filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241
habeas petition. United States v. Tindall, 455 F.3d 885, 888 (8th Cir. 2006). The exhaustion
requirement is excusable if the petitioner can show that the administrative remedy process would
be futile. Elwood v. Jeter, 386 F.3d 842, 844 n.1 (8th Cir. 2004). As Skrzypek admittedly did
not wait for the BOP Central Office to consider his appeal, he failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. Skrzypek has stated no reason why this process would have been futile,
and his Objection is overruled for this reason as well.
Under the SCA, the BOP must conduct an individualized review but retains “ultimate
discretion to make RRC-placement decisions.” Heppner v. Roal, No. 09-2926, 2010 WL
1380146, at *4 (D. Minn. Mar. 3, 2010). Skrzypek has offered no rationale for how the BOP
abused its discretion or failed to conduct an individualized review; rather, the record reflects that
the Warden accounted for Skrzypek’s family support, financial resources, life skills, and
community resources in the decision to revise his RRC placement to 147 days. Baker Decl. ¶¶
4–5. Therefore, Skrzypek’s Objection is overruled for this reason.
IV. ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
Skrzypek’s Objection [Docket No. 19] is OVERRULED;
2.
Skrzypek’s Petition [Docket No. 1] is DISMISSED with prejudice;
3.
Skrzypek’s Emergency Motion [Docket No. 10] is DENIED as moot; and
4
4.
Magistrate Judge Rau’s R&R [Docket No. 16] is ADOPTED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
BY THE COURT:
s/Ann D. Montgomery
ANN D. MONTGOMERY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 17, 2011.
5
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?