Winters v. Marques

Background

Bradley L. Winters, who was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota, had a projected early release date of March 30, 2019. The prison’s Unit Team initially recommended placing him in a residential reentry center on June 5, 2018. After reviewing available centers, staff in the Bureau of Prisons’ Residential Reentry Management Branch determined that the most appropriate facility was in Waterloo, Iowa. Because that facility was operating over capacity, the branch changed the proposed placement date to October 2, 2018.

Winters filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the delay. The magistrate judge’s May 25, 2018 Report and Recommendation recommended denying the petition and dismissing the case with prejudice. Winters objected, and Warden R. Marques responded.

Governing law

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c), the Bureau of Prisons must, when practicable, help a prisoner transition from prison to the community during the final part of the sentence. The statute does not guarantee placement in a residential reentry center or require a minimum placement period.

For pre-release community placement, the Bureau of Prisons must consider five factors: the resources of the proposed facility; the nature and circumstances of the offense; the prisoner’s history and characteristics; statements by the sentencing court; and relevant Sentencing Commission policy statements. The placement must be decided individually and last long enough to provide the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration.

Court’s analysis

Winters first argued that the prison’s Unit Team did not consider all five statutory factors. The court relied on a declaration from Jon Gustin, the Residential Reentry Management Branch administrator. The declaration stated that the Unit Team primarily considers the four factors concerning the individual prisoner, while the branch’s field office finalizes the recommendation after considering the proposed facility’s resources. The court found no legal requirement that one BOP office consider every factor or that the Unit Team’s initial recommendation be final.

Winters next argued that considering facility capacity was not sufficiently individualized. The court held that the statute does not require every consideration to be purely individual and does not prevent the Bureau of Prisons from considering circumstances outside the prisoner, including facility resources. The court found that the record showed the Bureau of Prisons considered Winters individually while also properly considering the Waterloo facility’s resources.

Winters also argued that Bureau of Prisons policy changes ending placements above a facility’s operating capacity unlawfully reduced individualized consideration. The court distinguished the cases Winters cited and relied on Eighth Circuit precedent holding that requiring a stronger showing for an extended placement does not eliminate the Bureau of Prisons’ discretion for an entire class of prisoners.

The court rejected Winters’s evidence that the Waterloo facility had available space. An email from Winters’s sister reported that a facility employee had said there was plenty of bed space. But the Bureau of Prisons considered forecasted demand, including possible court-ordered placements that accounted for 80 to 90 percent of placements in the region. Winters did not present evidence refuting those facts or showing that the employee had considered the Bureau’s forecast.

The court also rejected Winters’s reliance on a prior related proceeding in which a district court ordered a placement. That proceeding involved a placement decision by an independent contractor rather than by the Bureau of Prisons, so the court found it materially different.

Finally, Winters argued that the Bureau of Prisons violated equal protection because other prisoners received longer placements. The court held that Winters had not provided enough information to show that those prisoners were similarly situated to him in all relevant respects.

Disposition

The court overruled Winters’s objections and reviewed the unobjected portions of the recommendation for clear error. Finding no clear error, it adopted the recommendation. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright ordered that Winters’s objections be overruled, the Report and Recommendation be adopted, the § 2241 petition be denied, and the action be dismissed with prejudice. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.