Ohlmeier v. Rardin

Background

Todd Allen Ohlmeier, who represented himself, is incarcerated at FMC Rochester. He filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure used to challenge certain aspects of federal custody. Ohlmeier alleged that Bureau of Prisons officials were trying to collect $300 per month toward restitution during his incarceration, rather than after his release to supervised release. He argued that this amounted to an improper change to his sentencing judgment. He also alleged that the Bureau denied him certain “rights and privileges” because he refused to comply with its restitution-collection efforts, without charging him with a specific rule violation.

Before filing the petition, Ohlmeier began the Bureau of Prisons’ Administrative Remedy Program. On July 11, 2024, he sent a notice requesting informal resolution to unit manager Todd Valento. Ohlmeier said he received no response and argued that further administrative steps would have been futile.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung recommended denying the petition and dismissing the matter without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The recommendation stated that, under the Bureau’s regulations, the lack of a response to Ohlmeier’s informal request could be treated as a denial. That would have allowed him to proceed to the next step by filing a formal administrative-remedy request, but he did not do so.

Objection and Clarification

Ohlmeier objected to the recommendation. He conceded that his notice was a request for informal resolution but clarified that he could not continue through the grievance process because, at least at his facility, BP-9 forms were provided only to prisoners who had a copy of the response to the initial request. He argued that the lack of a response therefore prevented him from taking the next step.

The court explained that the Administrative Remedy Program begins with an informal complaint. After a response, an inmate generally may file a formal request using a BP-9 form. The regulations also state that an inmate may treat an unanswered request as denied. The court considered Ohlmeier’s clarification and the respondent’s failure to respond significant to determining whether the remedies were actually available to him.

Disposition

Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan returned the matter to the magistrate judge for consideration of Ohlmeier’s clarified factual representations about his efforts to exhaust administrative remedies at FMC Rochester. The magistrate judge must determine whether those efforts satisfied Ohlmeier’s obligation to exhaust the available remedies before filing the petition.

The court did not adopt the recommendation, deny the petition, dismiss the matter, or decide the underlying restitution and prison-privilege claims in this order. After an amended Report and Recommendation is issued, the parties will have an opportunity to file objections under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.