Hanley v. LeJeune

Background

Shane Eric Hanley, who represented himself, was serving a 188-month federal prison sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota. His sentence included an order to pay $17,769 in restitution. The payment terms called for minimum payments of $25 per quarter through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP), or $20 per month from certain prison earnings.

Hanley agreed to participate in the IFRP in January 2020. In early 2022, the Bureau of Prisons audited inmate accounts to identify inmates who might be able to pay more than their existing IFRP agreements required. The Bureau asked Hanley to sign a new agreement, and in February 2022 he agreed to pay $36.20 per month. He paid that amount in March, April, and May 2022. Later in May, he signed another agreement restoring the payment amount to $25 per quarter.

Hanley then filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He argued that the Bureau violated procedural and substantive due process and the Administrative Procedure Act by adjusting his IFRP payments outside the normal 180-day program-review period. A magistrate judge recommended denying his objections and dismissing the petition. Hanley objected to that recommendation.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which Hanley specifically objected.

Due process

The court held that the Bureau’s request that Hanley sign the February 2022 IFRP agreement did not violate procedural due process. It reasoned that the applicable prison rules and regulations provided procedural safeguards, including an administrative process for challenging IFRP payment plans. The court also concluded that the governing rules did not prohibit reviewing IFRP agreements more often than every 180 days. Instead, the rules stated that program reviews occur at least every 180 days and that IFRP participation or progress may be reviewed when prison staff assess an inmate’s responsible behavior.

The court also held that there was no substantive due-process violation. It relied on Hanley’s agreement to participate in the voluntary IFRP and on the court’s conclusion that the Bureau calculated his payment obligation consistently with the applicable regulation and program statement. The court rejected Hanley’s argument that the consequences of refusing to participate made the program constitutionally involuntary.

Administrative Procedure Act claim

Hanley argued that the Bureau violated its own rules by conducting the review that led to the February 2022 agreement. The court explained that a claim based on an agency’s failure to follow its own rules requires an underlying violation of a right provided by statute or regulation. It found no such violation because the Bureau was allowed to conduct IFRP progress reviews less than 180 days after an earlier program review.

The court also rejected Hanley’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo changed the result. The court concluded that Loper Bright did not affect the statutory provisions at issue because those provisions authorize the Bureau, through the Attorney General, to fill in details of the relevant statutory schemes.

Mootness

The court agreed with the magistrate judge that Hanley’s claims were moot. The February 2022 agreement was no longer in effect, and the May 2022 agreement had restored his payment obligation to $25 per quarter. Hanley argued that a live dispute remained because he did not have access to the $108.60 he paid under the February agreement. The court rejected that argument because Hanley did not dispute the accuracy of the Bureau’s calculation, his restitution obligation, or the Bureau’s authority to facilitate restitution payments. The court therefore concluded that he had not shown an entitlement to the money and that no live controversy remained.

Disposition

Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan overruled Hanley’s objections to the report and recommendation, adopted the report and recommendation, and dismissed Hanley’s petition without prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.