Robeson v. English

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Adopting 11 Report and Recommendation. (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 10/15/2012. (PJM) (cc: Jasmine R. Robeson) Modified text on 10/15/2012 (jz).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 12-647(DSD/JSM)
Jasmine R. Robeson,
Petitioner,
ORDER

v.
N.C. English, Warden,
Respondent.

This matter is before the court upon the pro se objection by
petitioner Jasmine R. Robeson to the September 17, 2012, report and
recommendation of Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron. Based on a de
novo review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the
following reasons, the court adopts the report and recommendation
in its entirety.

BACKGROUND
The

background

of

this

case

is

fully

set

forth

in

the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and the court only
summarizes those facts necessary to resolve Robeson’s objections.
On December 16, 2003, Robeson pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to
Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Base.

Pet. Attach., at

2. Robeson was sentenced to 121 months in prison, followed by five

years of supervised release.1

Pet. ¶ 4.

Robeson is incarcerated

at the Federal Correctional Institution in Waseca, Minnesota (FCI
Waseca).

Id. ¶ 1.

Robeson is scheduled for release from federal

custody on May 28, 2013.

Buege Decl.

¶ 3.
On January 5, 2011, FCI Waseca recommended that Robeson spend
the last 150 to 180 days of her sentence in a residential reentry
center (RRC).

Id. ¶ 4.

As such, Robeson is scheduled for transfer

to Volunteers of America, a RRC in Baltimore, Maryland, on December
4, 2012.

Id. ¶ 5.

After receiving her RRC determination, Robeson

submitted a Request for Administrative Remedy, seeking to increase
her RRC placement to twelve months.

Id. ¶ 6.

FCI Waseca denied

this request, and Robeson appealed to the regional office of the
Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

Id.

appeal on February 21, 2012.
BOP central office.

The regional office denied the

Id.

Robeson did not appeal to the

Id.

On March 12, 2012, Robeson filed the present petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that
FCI Waseca officials acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner
and did not

act in good faith when denying her request for

additional RRC time.

The magistrate judge recommends that the

petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice, because the

1

Robeson’s sentence was subsequently reduced to 120 months,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Buege Decl. ¶ 4.
2

decision to place Robeson in a RRC for 150 to 180 days was fully
within the discretion of the BOP.

Robeson objects to the report

and recommendation and incorporates the arguments previously set
forth in her petition and response.

Pet.’s Resp. 2.

DISCUSSION
The

court

reviews

the

magistrate judge de novo.

report

and

recommendation

of

the

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(b)(3); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b).

Robeson argues that the

decision by FCI Waseca to place her in a RRC for 150 to 180 days is
arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the Second Chance Act
of 2007.2
Under the Second Chance Act of 2007,
The director of the Bureau of Prisons shall,
to the extent practicable, ensure that a
prisoner serving a term of imprisonment spends
a portion of the final months of that term
(not to exceed 12 months) under conditions
that will afford that prisoner a reasonable
opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the

2

The magistrate judge correctly noted that Robeson did not
exhaust her administrative remedies. Robeson failed to appeal the
denial of her Request for Administrative Remedy to the BOP Central
Office, and this alone warrants dismissal of the petition. See
United States v. Tindall, 455 F.3d 885, 888 (8th Cir. 2006).
Exhaustion, however, is not a jurisdictional prerequisite, and the
court considers the merits of the petition. See Lueth v. Beach,
498 F.3d 795, 797 n.3 (8th Cir. 2007).
3

reentry of that prisoner into the community.
Such conditions may include a community
correctional facility.3
18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1).

This provision must be read, however, in

conjunction with the BOP’s general authority to assign places of
imprisonment.4

See id. § 3624(c)(4) (noting that “[n]othing in

this subsection shall be construed to limit or restrict authority
of the Bureau of Prisons under section 3621”).

The BOP has broad

discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) “to choose the location of an
inmate’s imprisonment, so long as the factors enumerated in the
statute are considered.”
1103

(8th

omitted).

Cir.

2007)

Fegans v. United States, 506 F.3d 1101,

(citation

and

internal

quotation

marks

In making a location decision, the BOP must consider:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

the
resources
of
the
facility
contemplated;
the nature and circumstances of the
offense;
the history and characteristics of the
prisoner;
any statement by the court that imposed
the sentence(A) concerning the purposes for which
the sentence to imprisonment was
determined to be warranted; or
(B) recommending a type of penal or
correctional
facility
as
appropriate; and

3

The terms “residential reentry center” and “community
correctional facility” are interchangeable. See Stanko v. Rios,
No. 08-4991, 2009 WL 1303969, at *1 n.1 (D. Minn. May 8, 2009).
4

A RRC is a place of imprisonment.
F.3d 752, 755 n.3 (8th Cir. 2008).
4

Miller v. Whitehead, 527

(5)

18

U.S.C.

§

any
pertinent
policy
statement
issued by the Sentencing Commission
pursuant to section 994(a)(2) of
title 28.

3621(b).

In

this

case,

FCI

Waseca

explicitly

considered each of these criteria in its “Review for Residential
Reentry Center” decision.

See Buege Decl. Attach. B.

Moreover,

Robeson offers no evidence that the consideration of the § 3621(b)
factors was “other than in good faith.”

Miller v. Whitehead, 527

F.3d 752, 758 (8th Cir. 2008).

Therefore, the duration of the RRC

assignment

the

was

fully

within

discretion

of

the

BOP,

and

dismissal of Robeson’s petition is warranted.
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Petitioner’s objection [ECF No. 14] to the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation is overruled;
2.

The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No.

11] is adopted;
3.

Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus [ECF

No. 1] is denied;
4.

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

[ECF No. 2] is denied as moot; and
5.

This action is dismissed with prejudice.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated:

October 15, 2012
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

5