Geraci v. Wohlman

Background

Michael Romeo Geraci pleaded guilty to possessing an unregistered firearm and received a 120-month prison sentence on February 5, 2013. On July 16, 2020, he was transferred to a Bureau of Prisons-supervised residential reentry center. He escaped from the facility on September 30, 2020. His federal sentence calculation was placed in inoperative status on October 1, 2020.

Aitkin County authorities arrested Geraci on October 7, 2020, on a federal escape warrant and for possessing a controlled substance. The county released him to federal custody on November 2, 2020, and his sentence calculation was placed in operative status on November 1, 2020. The court stated that Geraci’s sentence was inoperative from October 1 through October 31, 2020, and that his time in state custody could not be credited to his federal sentence because he was not in Bureau of Prisons custody.

Geraci also faced two disciplinary proceedings arising from his conduct at the reentry center. One involved punching another resident six times. The other involved leaving the facility and exceeding the time allowed for his absence. Geraci was found guilty in both proceedings. A disciplinary hearing officer 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. The hearing officer reduced the assault charge from assaulting any person to assault because there were no medical records of the other resident’s injuries.

Claims and analysis

Geraci’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenged the duration of his confinement. He argued that the time he spent in county custody should count toward his federal sentence, that the disciplinary proceedings violated due process, and that his release date had been improperly recalculated. He later sought to add a claim that the reentry center and the Bureau of Prisons had unfairly targeted him and retaliated against him for speaking with the Saint Paul Pioneer Press about COVID-19 at the facility.

The court rejected the sentence-credit claim. It explained that Geraci’s federal sentence became inoperative after his escape and did not resume until he returned to exclusive federal custody. Because he was not in Bureau of Prisons custody while held by the county, that period could not be credited to his federal sentence. The court also noted that Geraci cited no authority supporting his position.

The court concluded that the disciplinary proceedings satisfied constitutional due-process requirements. Geraci received written notice of the charges, had an opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence, and received written explanations from the factfinders. He declined to call witnesses and refused suggested staff representatives after being told that his requested representative was not eligible to serve. The court further found that evidence supported the decisions, including video showing Geraci approaching and repeatedly punching the seated resident and Geraci’s admission that he left the facility.

The court also rejected Geraci’s arguments that the incident reports and hearings were untimely. The disciplinary hearing officer determined that the delay did not impair Geraci’s ability to defend himself, and the court noted that at least part of the delay resulted from Geraci’s escape and time outside federal custody. The court stated that Geraci did not show prejudice from the two-day period between his return to the reentry center and his receipt of the reports. It also described his argument that he could not be disciplined because he had not signed an acknowledgment of the facility’s rules as frivolous on its face.

The court declined to hold an evidentiary hearing. It found that Geraci had not established a due-process violation or entitlement to an earlier projected release date, and it found no evidence supporting his retaliation and targeting allegations.

Disposition

The court’s 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 sentence says the petition is “denied,” but the operative conclusion orders dismissal; this summary follows the conclusion’s stated disposition.