Geraci v. Wohlman

Background

After Geraci returned to federal custody, the residential reentry center pursued two disciplinary matters. One concerned his repeatedly punching another resident; the other concerned his leaving the facility. Geraci was found guilty of both charges. A Discipline Hearing Office officer later reduced the assault charge from “Assaulting Any Person” to “Assault” and imposed the loss and forfeiture of good-conduct time: 27 days lost and 10 days forfeited for the assault, and 40 days lost and 20 days forfeited for the escape. His projected release date became April 17, 2021.

Claims

Geraci’s petition challenged the calculation of his sentence, the loss of good-conduct credit, and the fairness of the disciplinary proceedings. He argued that the time he spent in county custody should count toward his federal sentence because it was not credited toward another sentence. He also argued that the disciplinary proceedings violated due process because the incident reports were provided late and because he was not allowed to use his preferred staff representative. In a motion to supplement, he alleged that the residential reentry center and the Bureau of Prisons targeted him and retaliated against him for speaking with the Saint Paul Pioneer Press about COVID-19 at the facility.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a petition challenging the duration of confinement is the proper vehicle for seeking restoration of good-conduct time, and that its review was limited to constitutional violations. It rejected Geraci’s sentence-credit claim because his sentence was inoperative from October 1 through October 31, 2020, and he was not in Bureau of Prisons custody while he was held by county authorities. The court stated that Geraci provided no authority showing that this time should count toward his federal sentence.

The court applied the procedural protections required for prison disciplinary proceedings involving the loss of good-conduct credit. Those protections include advance written notice, an opportunity—consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals—to call witnesses and present evidence, a written explanation of the decision, and some evidence supporting the finding of guilt. The court found that Geraci received notice, declined to call witnesses, received written findings, and was subject to decisions supported by evidence. It also found that the delay in providing the reports did not impair his ability to defend himself, particularly because he had escaped and remained outside federal custody for about a month. The court rejected his complaint about the two-day delay after his return because he did not claim prejudice or cite supporting authority.

The court also rejected the retaliation and targeting claim because Geraci provided no evidence supporting it. It declined to hold an evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

The conclusion ordered that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED and that Geraci’s motion to supplement be DENIED. The opinion’s opening paragraph says the petition is “denied,” while the formal conclusion says it is “dismissed”; this summary follows the formal conclusion’s wording.