Schick v. Lara
1:11-cv-01175
S.D.N.Y.Mar 8, 2012Background
- Schick, a convicted federal felon, filed a 28 U.S.C. §2241 petition challenging the BOP's decision to limit his pre-release community confinement to six months of home confinement.
- Petitioner sought discovery via an August 16, 2011 letter regarding the availability of Residential Re-Entry Center (RRC) bed space at the time his referral was considered.
- The court addressed whether discovery into RRC bed space was appropriate in the context of a BOP pre-release placement decision.
- BOP's decision relied, in part, on limited RRC bed space in the district of release, among other statutory factors.
- The court reiterates that BOP has broad discretion to designate placement, and a court cannot substitute its own determination if statutory factors were considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner may obtain discovery about RRC bed space. | Schick seeks facts on bed space affecting placement. | BOP discretion governs placement; discovery into resources is inappropriate. | Discovery denied; no entitlement to such information. |
| Whether BOP's pre-release placement decision is reviewable by courts. | Potential review to challenge BOP’s placement rationale. | Placement decisions fall within BOP's sole discretion if §3621(b) factors are considered. | Not reviewable; courts cannot substitute for BOP's designations when statutory factors are considered. |
| Whether the availability of RRC bed space, when considered, is material to the court's review. | Actual bed space could affect the legality of the decision. | Space availability is a factor but not subject to judicial re-weighing; BOP may reserve space. | Immater ial; the court cannot revisit the BOP's decision based on space as a general matter. |
Key Cases Cited
- Levine v. Apker, 455 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006) (BOP placement decisions reviewed only to the extent required by statute; no right to facility)
- Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2005) (BOP may place inmate where it wishes if §3621 factors are considered)
- United States v. Williams, 65 F.3d 301 (2d Cir. 1995) (placement decisions are within BOP's discretion with statutory factors in mind)
- Fournier v. Zickefoose, 620 F. Supp. 2d 313 (D. Conn. 2009) (court cannot second-guess BOP when it has not exceeded authority)