Frank Bohrn v. Warden R. Marques ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 18-2353
    ___________________________
    Frank E. Bohrn
    lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant
    v.
    Warden R. Marques
    lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
    ____________
    Submitted: September 4, 2018
    Filed: October 15, 2018
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Federal inmate Frank Bohrn appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28
    U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the decision by Bureau of Prisons (BOP) officials
    to postpone his placement in a Residential Reentry Center (RRC). Although the
    district court dismissed Bohrn’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, it also adopted the
    magistrate judge’s alternative recommendation that the petition should be denied on
    the merits.
    Construing Bohrn’s petition as a challenge to the BOP’s general policies
    regarding RRC placement, see Martin v. Gerlinski, 
    133 F.3d 1076
    , 1079 (8th Cir.
    1998), we agree with the district court’s alternative disposition. The BOP had the
    authority to address, through an internal memo, the allocation of BOP resources. See
    Miller v. Whitehead, 
    527 F.3d 752
    , 757 (8th Cir. 2008) (stating that even where a
    statute requires the BOP to make an individualized determination, it may rely on
    rulemaking to resolve certain issues of general applicability). That guidance
    instructed BOP officials making placement determinations to consider “the resources
    of the facility contemplated,” as required by statute. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(1). There
    is no indication that the BOP’s policy caused the agency to abdicate its obligation to
    conduct an individualized review of Bohrn’s circumstances in this case.
    Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded with
    instructions to deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47A.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-2353

Filed Date: 10/15/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021