Dudgeon v. Rios

Background

James G. Dudgeon, proceeding without a lawyer, was serving a two-year prison term for aggravated identity theft. He sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the federal law allowing a prisoner to challenge the execution of a sentence, and asked for immediate placement in the Bureau of Prisons’ elderly home-detention pilot program. He also sought an immediate transfer to home confinement.

In its August 19, 2019 order, the court denied Dudgeon’s petition and transfer motion without prejudice. The court found that any request to recalculate his good-time credits was moot because the Bureau of Prisons had already recalculated his sentence under the First Step Act. The court also stated that the Attorney General and Bureau of Prisons had discretion over placement in the elderly-offender program. At that time, Bureau of Prisons staff determined that Dudgeon was not yet eligible for the program but would become eligible on September 14, 2019. Staff also stated that he did not have a residence for release.

Motion for Reconsideration

Dudgeon’s reply to the government’s supplemental response was treated as a motion asking the court to reconsider the August 19 order. He argued that the Bureau of Prisons had misstated whether he had a residence. He proposed living with his fiancé, Sharon Burch, in the Northern District of Illinois. He pointed to her residence and employment, their relationship, his prior time living with her, and his belief that he could find work there.

The Bureau of Prisons relied on an earlier review by a United States probation officer. That review rejected Dudgeon’s proposed relocation plan based on the officer’s conclusion that Dudgeon lacked significant family or employment ties in the Northern District of Illinois. The government later explained that Dudgeon’s fiancé was not treated as a significant family tie because they were not married and had lived together for only six months before his incarceration. The government also stated that she had expressed doubt that Dudgeon could find employment there because of his felony conviction.

Dudgeon had not completed the Bureau of Prisons’ administrative process. The court nevertheless excused that failure because his claim was time-sensitive and straightforward. The Bureau of Prisons later transferred Dudgeon to a residential reentry center in Janesville, Wisconsin, where he was residing when the court ruled.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The court explained that reconsideration is limited to correcting a clear legal or factual error or considering newly discovered evidence. It found no such error or new evidence. The court further held that the Bureau of Prisons had authority and discretion to make placement decisions under 34 U.S.C. § 60541 and had explained the basis for its decision concerning Dudgeon’s proposed residence and prospects for employment.

The court therefore found no basis to change its earlier denial of Dudgeon’s petition without prejudice. Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered that Dudgeon’s motion for reconsideration was DENIED.