Rosario-Santiago v. Pliler

Background

Luis J. Rosario-Santiago, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the revocation of 27 days of accumulated Good Conduct Time. The revocation was imposed as a penalty for a disciplinary offense related to violating telephone-monitoring procedures. Rosario-Santiago argued that taking away the time credits violated his due-process rights.

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger, who issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the petition be denied. The report stated that the record did not permit a determination of whether Rosario-Santiago had exhausted available administrative remedies. It concluded, however, that resolving exhaustion was unnecessary because the Bureau of Prisons had not violated his due-process rights. The opinion explained that the exhaustion requirement was not jurisdictional and that a court could reject a plainly meritless claim without first deciding whether administrative remedies had been exhausted.

Review and ruling

The parties did not object to the Report and Recommendation within the required period. The court stated that they therefore waived their right to object and to obtain appellate review. Despite that waiver, the court conducted its own de novo review, meaning an independent review of the challenged issues, and found the recommendation well reasoned and supported.

Judge John P. Cronan adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denied Rosario-Santiago’s petition. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. It directed the clerk to close the action, enter judgment, and mail the order to Rosario-Santiago.

Classification

This is a substantive ruling because the court reached the merits of Rosario-Santiago’s due-process challenge and concluded that the Bureau of Prisons had not violated his rights, even though the court did not resolve the exhaustion issue.