Wicka v. United States

Background

Trinity J. Wicka, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an emergency petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He was serving a 36-month sentence for possessing stolen firearms and had been transferred to a Volunteers of America residential re-entry center in Minneapolis. After a January 7, 2021 incident involving damage to a bathroom and suspected possession of synthetic cannabinoids, he was removed from the center and placed in the Renville County Jail.

The two January 7 incident reports were later expunged by the disciplinary hearing officer because of procedural errors. Wicka also had an unrelated November 2020 drug-related disciplinary finding at the re-entry center, for which he lost 40 days of good-conduct time. Wicka argued that the January reports were not provided to him within 24 hours as required by Bureau of Prisons regulations and that his reassignment lacked a valid basis. He sought return to the re-entry center or release from Bureau of Prisons custody.

Court’s analysis

The court identified the only active issue as whether the Bureau of Prisons improperly removed Wicka from the re-entry center and placed him in the county jail. It explained that prisoners generally have no constitutional right to remain in a particular institution or to avoid discretionary transfers to less agreeable facilities. Placement decisions are within the Bureau of Prisons’ discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), so long as they are not based on prohibited or invidious reasons and do not independently violate the Constitution.

The court concluded that Wicka’s placement was not based on a prohibited or invidious reason. The Bureau considered the November 2020 drug incident and the January 2021 reports in determining that Wicka required a more secure placement. The court held that the Bureau could consider available information about unpunished conduct, including the expunged January reports, when making a placement decision. It also clarified that placement in a residential re-entry center remained imprisonment and that Wicka had remained in Bureau of Prisons custody throughout.

Wicka later argued that the transfer was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court rejected that theory, reasoning that 18 U.S.C. § 3625 prevents judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act of Bureau of Prisons determinations made under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621–3624. The court further determined that the record was sufficient and that no evidentiary hearing was necessary.

Disposition

Judge Becky R. Thorson ordered that Wicka’s motion for leave to supplement the record be granted. She recommended that Wicka’s emergency motion for relief under § 2241 be denied and that the action be dismissed with prejudice. The document was a report and recommendation rather than a final district court order or judgment; it stated that objections could be filed within 14 days.