Njos v. Thomas

Filing 95

ORDER denying 72 Motion for Hearing; denying 74 Motion for declaratory judgment; denying 80 Motion for Summary Judgment; and, adopting in part and denying in part 87 Report and Recommendations. See Order for details. Signed by Honorable Edwin M. Kosik on 12/9/2016 (emksec, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
_______________________________
SCOTT J. NJOS,
:
Petitioner
:
:
v.
:
:
WARDEN THOMAS,
:
Respondent.
:
________________________________

CIVIL NO. 3:14-CV-0766

(Judge Kosik)

ORDER

AND NOW, THIS 9th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016, upon de novo review of
Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 87),
Petitioner’s Objections thereto (Doc. 88), Petitioner’s Comprehensive Verified
Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 57), Petitioner’s Motion for
Hearing (Doc. 72), Petitioner’s Motion Challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ Inmate
Security Designation Policy (Doc. 74), Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 80), and all accompanying supporting and opposing briefs, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
(1)

The R&R (Doc. 87), is ADOPTED in part and DENIED in part;

(2)

The R&R is DENIED as to the recommendation that the Writ of Habeas

Corpus be denied or transferred. Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus will be
GRANTED to the extent that the BOP has not considered, in good faith, the 18
U.S.C. § 3621(b) factors, including the sentencing judge’s recommendation, as well
as any other appropriate factors the BOP routinely considers, in its exercise of
discretion in Petitioner’s prison transfers;
(3)

The R&R (Doc. 87), is ADOPTED as follows:

1

(a) the recommendation that Petitioner’s motion for hearing (Doc. 72)
be denied is adopted, but for the reasons stated herein, which differ from the
Magistrate Judge’s reasoning. The reason is that if the BOP has not considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) factors in Petitioner’s transfers, the only relief Petitioner is
entitled to is an order requiring the BOP to consider - in good faith - whether or not
he should be transferred to a particular institution in light of the statutory factors. See
Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 251 (3d Cir. 2005); Moncrieffe
v. Yost, 367 F. App’x 286, 289 (3d Cir. 2010);
(b) the recommendation that Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment
(Doc. 80), be denied. Petitioner has failed to specifically object to this portion of the
recommendation and upon reasoned consideration, the recommendation is adopted;
(c) the recommendation that Petitioner’s motion for declaratory
judgment (Doc. 74), be denied is adopted, but for the reason that given the
conditional grant of the Writ as set forth above, this argument is moot;
(4)

Petitioner’s motion for hearing (Doc. 72) is DENIED;

(5)

Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 80), is DENIED;

(6)

Petitioner’s motion for declaratory judgment (Doc. 74), is DENIED; and

(7)

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case.

s/Edwin M. Kosik
Edwin M. Kosik
United States District Judge

2