United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division
STEVEN D. FRENO, Petitioner,
STEVE KALLIS, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER AND OPINION
Darrow Chief United States District Judge.
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.
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
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,
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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