Fiorito v. Fikes

Background

Michael Fiorito was serving a sentence for mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud, with a projected release date of August 22, 2026. Prison staff had filed and sustained two incident reports against him in 2016 and another in February 2022. After the February 2022 report, Fiorito was told that his Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and Needs (PATTERN) assessment would increase from low to medium.

PATTERN is part of the Bureau of Prisons’ implementation of the First Step Act. The assessment measures recidivism risk using several factors, including the number and seriousness of recent incident reports. A qualifying prisoner may earn time credits regardless of risk level, but prisoners with minimum or low risk assessments earn credits faster.

Fiorito filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a petition challenging the legality or conditions of custody. He sought to have two incident reports removed from his prison record, alleging retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights, violations of due process, and that he was not guilty of the alleged violations. He also sought a reduction of his PATTERN risk assessment to low.

Magistrate Judge’s Order and Appeal

Fiorito moved to compel production of documents, including materials that he claimed guided staff in increasing an incarcerated person’s PATTERN score and materials concerning implementation of the First Step Act and changes to PATTERN. He also moved for an extension of time to file supplemental briefing. The magistrate judge denied the motion to compel and granted in part and denied in part the motion for an extension. The partial grant allowed the magistrate judge to consider Fiorito’s briefing; otherwise, the motion was denied.

Fiorito appealed that order to the district court. He also filed a motion asking the court to take judicial notice of two nonbinding cases concerning the Bureau of Prisons’ discretion in awarding time credits. The court did not address that motion because the pending motions did not present the merits of Fiorito’s petition.

Court’s Analysis

The district court explained that it reviews a magistrate judge’s ruling on a nondispositive issue under a highly deferential standard. The ruling may be changed only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A ruling is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court has a firm conviction that a mistake was made; a ruling is contrary to law when the court failed to apply or misapplied relevant law or procedural rules.

Regarding discovery, the court explained that a habeas petitioner does not ordinarily have an automatic right to discovery. A judge may permit discovery for good cause, which requires showing that fully developed facts could support habeas relief. Fiorito’s objections did not explain why the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. They also did not address the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the requested discovery was unrelated to the claims in Fiorito’s petition. His arguments about limited access to materials and a possible claim under the Administrative Procedure Act did not justify changing the ruling.

Regarding additional briefing, Fiorito initially sought to discuss three Supreme Court decisions but later acknowledged that one had been included by mistake. He therefore sought to discuss only Kisor v. Wilkie and West Virginia v. EPA. Fiorito argued that the decisions limited reflexive deference to federal agencies’ interpretations of law. The district court held that he did not identify the agency involved, the interpretation at issue, or how the cases supported his petition. He also did not show that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Disposition

The district court denied Fiorito’s appeal of the magistrate judge’s order and affirmed that order. The court therefore left in place the denial of the motion to compel and the grant in part and denial in part of the motion for an extension of time to file supplemental briefing.