Frank Bohrn v. Warden R. Marques, No. 18-2353 (8th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Kelly and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. Section 2241 challenge to the Bureau of Prison's decision to postpone Bohrn's placement in a Residential Reentry Center was properly rejected on the merits as the Bureau's policy regarding such placements, which includes consideration of the allocation of resources, did not cause the agency to abdicate its obligation to conduct an individualized review of Bohrn's circumstances. [ October 12, 2018
Download PDF
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Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: September 4, 2018 Filed: October 15, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.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-