Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Freno v. Kallis

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division

June 20, 2019

STEVEN D. FRENO, Petitioner,
v.
STEVE KALLIS, Warden, Respondent.

          ORDER AND OPINION

          Sara Darrow Chief United States District Judge.

         The matter presently before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's § 2241 Petition is DENIED.

         Background

         Freno is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Complex in Florence, Colorado. However, at the time of filing his petition, he was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Pekin, Illinois. He is serving a 24-month imprisonment sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa following the revocation of his supervised release on September 21, 2017. United States v. Freno, No.14-CR-104-1, d/e 81 (N.D. Iowa), Resp. Ex. 2 (Doc. 3-2). The court imposed a 1 year term of supervised release to follow his imprisonment sentence. One of the conditions of his supervised release provides that:

Immediately following release from custody, the defendant must reside in a Residential Reentry Center for a period of 120 days. This placement will be in the community corrections component with work release privileges. While a resident of the Residential Reentry Center, the defendant must abide by all rules and regulations of the facility. The defendant must report to the Residential Reentry Center at a time and date to be determined by the Bureau of Prisons, the Residential Reentry Center, and the United States Probations Office.

Id. at 5. His current projected release date is August 4, 2019. See BOP Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited on June 18, 2019).

         On June 8, 2018, Freno's Unit Team at FCI Pekin submitted an Institutional Referral for Residential Re-entry Center (“RRC”) Placement, recommending that his RRC placement begin on the date he was scheduled to be released. Resp. Ex. 1 at ¶ 6, Attach. 2 (Doc 3-1). The listed reason for recommended RRC placement was that “Per Freno's Special Conditions of Supervision, immediately following release from custody, he must reside in a RRC for a period of 120 days, therefore, a May 29, 2019 date is requested.”[1] Id.

         The parties agree that Freno adequately pursued his administrative remedies within the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to challenge this designation. In February 2019, Freno filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1), arguing the BOP has erred in its application of the Second Chance Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c). He argues he is entitled to a longer placement in an RRC than was ordered by the sentencing court and requests that the Court order the BOP to provide him with RRC placement prior to his release from BOP custody.

         Respondent filed his response on April 9, 2019 (Doc. 3), arguing that RRC placement is soundly within the discretion of the BOP and, therefore, Freno is not entitled to relied. Freno has not filed a timely reply. This Order follows.

         Discussion

         A petition seeking habeas corpus relief is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when a petitioner is challenging the fact or duration of his confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 490, 93 S.Ct. 1827 (1973); Waletzki v. Keohane, 13 F.3d 1079, 1080 (7th Cir. 1994). The writ of habeas corpus may be granted where the defendant is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Respondent notes that there is disagreement among the district courts in the Seventh Circuit as to whether RRC placement challenges can be brought under § 2241, or whether they instead should be brought under the Administrative Procedure Act or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See Perry v. Krueger, No. 15-1298, 2015 WL 6500915, at *1 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2015) (collecting cases). Respondent has assumed arguendo that Freno may proceed under § 2241 and the Court will do the same. However, even assuming arguendo that the petition may proceed under § 2241, Freno is not entitled to relief.

         Freno has not shown he has any entitlement to any particular length of time in an RRC. The BOP has broad discretion in determining the place of a prisoner's incarceration. See Hoskins v. Lenear, 395 F.3d 372, 375 (7th Cir. 2005); Kentucky Dep't of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989). Under the Second Chance Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c), the BOP has the authority to place inmates in community confinement facilities during the final portion of their sentences for up to 12 months. Specifically:

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 reentry of that prisoner into the community. Such conditions may include a community correctional facility.

Id.; see also, 28 C.F.R. § 570.21(a); 28 C.F.R. § 570.22. The statute also requires that determinations be made on an individual basis and “conducted in a manner consistent with section 3621(b).” 18 U.S.C. 3624(c)(6). Section 3621(b) specifies the relevant factors to be considered: (1) the resources of the facility contemplated; (2) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (3) the history and characteristics of the prisoner; (4) any statement by the court that imposed the sentence concerning the purposes for which the sentence was determined to be warranted or recommending a specific type of facility; and (5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.