Balter v. Martinez
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM and ORDER OVERRULING petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mannion; The Report and Recommendation is not adopted 22 ; Clerk of Court is directed to TRANSFER case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Signed by Honorable James M. Munley on 7/20/10 (sm, )
<![CDATA[
Balter v. Martinez
Doc. 26
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA R IC H A R D BALTER, P e t itio n e r : N o . 3:09cv504 : : (J u d g e Munley) : : v. : : R IC A R D O MARTINEZ, Warden, : R espondent : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
MEMORANDUM B e fo re the court are petitioner's objections to the report and recommendation o f Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion, which proposes that the court dismiss the in s ta n t petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice for failure to exhaust a d m in is tra tiv e remedies. B a c k g ro u n d O n March 18, 2009, Richard Balter filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas c o rp u s in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner contends that the court th a t sentenced him failed to establish a specific schedule for payments due under th e Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, during his incarceration. Petitioner contends that the Bureau of Prisons set up this schedule, and that the B u re a u lacked authority to do so. As such, he seeks an order from the court barring th e Bureau from enforcing this schedule of payments or instituting any sanctions a g a in s t the petitioner for failing to comply with the payment schedule. The petitioner
Dockets.Justia.com
filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4). Magistrate Judge Mannion issued an order to show cause to the respondent a n d granted the petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on April 20, 2009. See Doc. 5). Respondent filed the required response on April 22, 2009. (Doc. 6). After the petitioner filed documents in support of his motion, Judge Mannion ordered p e titio n e r to file a supplemental brief outlining the steps he had taken to exhaust his a d m in is tra tiv e remedies. (Doc. 12). After the petitioner filed this brief, the m a g is tra te judge issued his report and recommendation, which proposed that this c o u rt dismiss the case without prejudice for failure to to exhaust administrative re m e d ie s . (Doc. 22). Petitioner then filed objections to this report and re c o m m e n d a tio n , bringing the case to its present posture. J u r is d ic tio n Because petitioner filed his action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the court has ju ris d ic tio n pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district courts shall have original ju ris d ic tio n of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the U n ite d States."). Legal Standard When dealing with objections to a magistrate judge's report and re c o m m e n d a tio n , a district court must make a de novo determination of those p o rtio n s of the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). This c o u rt may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
2
recommendations made by the magistrate. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). The district c o u rt judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the m a g is tra te judge with instructions. Id. Discussion T h e magistrate judge concluded that petitioner's claim should be dismissed w ith o u t prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Under federal law, "[f]e d e ra l prisoners are ordinarily required to exhaust their administrative remedies b e fo re petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241." Moscato v. F e d e ra l Bureau of Prisons, 98 F.3d 757, 760 (3d Cir. 1993). The exhaustion re q u ire m e n t exists for three reasons: "(1) allowing the appropriate agency to develop a factual record and apply its expertise facilitates judicial review; (2) permitting a g e n c ie s to grant the relief requested conserves judicial resources; and (3) providing a g e n c ie s the opportunity to correct their own errors fosters administrative a u to n o m y ." Id. at 761-62. This rule applies unless a petitioner can demonstrate th a t exhaustion "is futile." Gambino v. Morris, 134 F.3d 156, 171 (3d Cir. 1998) (R o th , concurring). Futility can occur when administrative review will not meet any of th e goals of the exhaustion doctrine. Bradshaw v. Carlson, 682 F.2d 1050, 1052 (3d C ir. 1981) P e titio n e r does not deny that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, a n d argues in part that he is not required to do so under the law. As explained a b o v e , the exhaustion requirement, though not stated specifically in 28 U.S.C. §
3
2241, has traditionally been applied by the courts unless good cause to waive that re q u ire m e n t exists. Petitioner contends that any attempt to exhaust his a d m in is tra tiv e remedies would be futile, since his claim is that the sentencing court im p ro p e rly delegated to the Bureau of Prisons responsibility for his payment s c h e d u le . Thus, appealing to the Bureau would not address his problems, which are w ith the court's sentence, not the Bureau's execution of it. Anticipating this a rg u m e n t, the respondent concedes that if the court concludes that an administrative re m e d y would not address the problems that petitioner has with his sentence, the a p p ro p ria te remedy would be to transfer the case to the court where sentencing o c c u rre d . To the extent that petitioner seeks to have this court continue jurisdiction over th e matter, the court will overrule his objections. This case involves the Mandatory V ic tim s Restitution Act (MVRA), which requires the sentencing court to "specify in th e restitution order the manner in which, and the schedule according to which, the re s titu tio n is to be paid." 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals h a s concluded that "ordering restitution is a judicial function that cannot be d e le g a te d , in whole or in part." United States v. Corley, 500 F.3d 210, 225 (3d Cir. 2 0 0 7 ). In Corley, the court concluded that the MVRA mandated that the sentencing ju d g e consider a defendant's finances in ordering restitution. Id. at 226. If the s e n te n c in g court had knowledge that a defendant "could not make immediate p a y m e n t in full, it was required under § 3664(2) to set a different schedule of
4
payments." Id. To do otherwise, the court found, would constitute an impermissible d e le g a tio n of the court's responsibility. Id. The question in this case, then, is w h e th e r the district court left to the BOP to determine the amount and schedule of p a y m e n ts to be made by petitioner despite knowledge that petitioner could not make im m e d ia te full restitution. If the district court did so, the court did not follow the d ic ta te s of the MVRA. See Corley, 500 F.3d at 227 (finding that when a court orders "im m e d ia te " payment of restitution with knowledge that the defendant cannot make fu ll restitution, such orders "are indistinguishable in principle from outright d e le g a tio n s of authority to the Bureau of Prisons."). The question of whether the sentencing court properly delegated the c o n d itio n s of restitution to the Bureau of Prisions is, in light of recent Circuit Court p re c e d e n t, one best addressed by the court that did the sentencing, and the in fo rm a tio n required for that determination could not efficiently be addressed through th e Bureau's administrative process. The court concludes that the most efficient p ro c e d u re in this case would be to transfer the matter to the District of New Jersey, w h e re the petitioner received his sentence. The United States Code provides that "[f]o r the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district c o u rt may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have b e e n brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Courts have found that the interests of c o n v e n ie n c e and efficiency can mandate transfer of a habeas corpus case from the s ta te of incarceration to the state of conviction. See, e.g., Verissimo v. INS, 204 F.
5
Supp. 2d 818, 820 (D. N.J. 2002) (finding that "a habeas petition may be transferred to the district court of the state in which the petitioner was sentenced and convicted, e v e n if the petitioner was transferred to prison in a different state."); Wilkins v. E ric k s o n , 484 F.2d 969, 973 (8th Cir. 1973) (allowing transfer of habeas corpus case fro m the District of South Dakota to the District of Montana because "Montana, the s ta te of conviction and sentencing, is the most convenient forum because of the a v a ila b ility of witnesses and records."). In determining the appropriate venue for a h a b e a s , courts consider "traditional venue considerations," such as the location w h e re material events took place, where records and witnesses are located and the c o n v e n ie n c e of the parties involved. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 4 8 4 , 493-94 (1973). As such, the court will order such transfer. C o n c lu s io n F o r the reasons stated above, the court will overrule the petitioner's objections to the report and recommendation. The court will not, however, adopt the report and re c o m m e n d a tio n , which proposes dismissing the action without prejudice. Instead, th e court will order the case transferred to the United States District Court for New J e rs e y , which is best equipped to handle the questions raised in this matter. An a p p ro p ria te order follows.
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA R IC H A R D BALTER, P e t itio n e r : N o . 3:09cv504 : : (J u d g e Munley) : : v. : : R IC A R D O MARTINEZ, Warden, : R espondent : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ORDER A N D NOW, to wit, this 20th day of July 2010, the petitioner's objections (Doc. 2 3 ) to the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion (D o c . 22) are hereby OVERRULED. The report and recommendation is not a d o p te d , and the Clerk of Court is directed to TRANSFER the case to the United S ta te s District court for the District of New Jersey.
BY THE COURT: s / James M. Munley JUDGE JAMES M. MUNLEY U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
