770 F. Supp. 2d 363
D.D.C.2011Background
- Brown, pro se federal prisoner, filed an APA challenge to his BOP security designation and facility re-designation after resentencing.
- Brown alleges the BOP failed to reclassify his security level in light of his new sentence (168 months) after an initial 220-month term.
- The action was brought in the District of Columbia and Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim.
- The district court held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review BOP discretionary custody decisions under 18 U.S.C. § 3625 and the APA.
- The court reviewed standards for Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal and noted the BOP's placement/transfer decisions are generally not reviewable under the APA.
- The court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding the claim is barred by statutory review limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review BOP placement decisions | Brown contends APA review is available. | BOP decisions are exempt from review under 18 U.S.C. § 3625. | Lacks subject-matter jurisdiction; dismissal granted. |
| Whether APA review is precluded for BOP security classifications | APA applies to agency actions affecting rights. | Statutory exclusion under § 3625 bars APA review of BOP custody decisions. | Preclusion applies; court cannot review the decision. |
| What standard governs a 12(b)(1) jurisdictional dismissal in this context | Not explicitly stated here; challenge to APA jurisdiction. | Plaintiff bears burden to prove jurisdiction by preponderance of the evidence. | Proper standard applied; jurisdiction found lacking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (jurisdictional dismissal standards and need to look at jurisdictional facts)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 363 F.3d 442 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (begin and end with jurisdiction; limited review when jurisdiction is lacking)
- Akinseye v. Dist. of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (subject-matter jurisdiction as an Article III and statutory requirement)
- Ins. Co. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982) (statutory preclusion of judicial review)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency discretion precludes review where statute commits action to agency judgment)
- Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 252 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (APA review ban is jurisdictional when action is committed to agency discretion by law)
- Patent Office Prof'l Ass'n v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 128 F.3d 751 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (agency actions not reviewable under the APA when other statutes preclude review)
- Miller v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 703 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2010) (prison placement decisions generally not reviewable under the APA)
- Brown v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 602 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.D.C. 2009) (place of imprisonment governed by § 3621(b) and outside APA challenge)
- Fox v. Lappin, 409 F. Supp. 2d 79 (D. Mass. 2006) (judicial review of inmate placement under those statutes is precluded by the APA)