Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Frank E. BOHRN Petitioner-Appellant v. Warden R. MARQUES Respondent-Appellee
[Unpublished]
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.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-2353
Decided: October 15, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)