Klatch v. Rathman

11 Citing cases

  1. Walker v. Fikes

    Civil Action 2:22-cv-41 (S.D. Ga. Jun. 14, 2023)

    Where Congress precludes judicial review of an agency decision by statute, judicial review of that decision is limited to whether the agency acted outside its statutory limits or violated the Constitution. See Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 597, 603 (1988); Santiago-Lebron v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 767 F.Supp.2d 1340, 1351 (S.D. Fla. 2011); Paradis v. Keller, 2011 WL 2790480, *4 n.3 (N.D.Ga. June 13, 2011); Klatch v. Rathman, No. 1:13-CV-01452, 2014 WL 537021, at *11 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 10, 2014); see also Rodriguez v. Johns, Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-134, 2018 WL 4102854, at *2-3 (S.D. Ga. July 26, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 4100695 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 28, 2018).

  2. Newell v. Fikes

    Civil Action 2:22-cv-53 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 21, 2023)   Cited 12 times

    Paradis v. Keller, 2011 WL 2790480, *4 n.3 (N.D.Ga. June 13, 2011); Klatch v. Rathman, No. 1:13-CV-01452, 2014 WL 537021, at *11 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 10, 2014); see also Rodriguez v. Johns, Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-134, 2018 WL 4102854, at *2-3 (S.D. Ga. July 26, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 4100695 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 28, 2018)

  3. Beckford v. Warden, FCI Jesup

    Civil Action 2:22-cv-27 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 15, 2023)

    Where Congress precludes judicial review of an agency decision by statute, judicial review of that decision is limited to whether the agency acted outside its statutory limits or violated the Constitution. See Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 597, 603 (1988); Santiago-Lebron v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 767 F.Supp.2d 1340, 1351 (S.D. Fla. 2011); Paradis v. Keller, 2011 WL 2790480, *4 n.3 (N.D.Ga. June 13, 2011); Klatch v. Rathman, No. 1:13-CV-01452, 2014 WL 537021, at *11 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 10, 2014); see also Rodriguez v. Johns, Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-134, 2018 WL 4102854, at *2-3 (S.D. Ga. July 26, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 4100695 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 28, 2018).

  4. Hylander v. Warden, FCI Jesup

    Civil Action 2:22-cv-44 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 25, 2023)

    Thus, where Congress precludes judicial review of an agency decision by statute, judicial review of that decision is limited to whether the agency acted outside its statutory limits or violated the Constitution. See Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 597, 603 (1988); Santiago-Lebron v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 767 F.Supp.2d 1340, 1351 (S.D. Fla. 2011); Paradis v. Keller, 2011 WL 2790480, *4 n.3 (N.D.Ga. June 13, 2011); Klatch v. Rathman, No. 1:13-CV-01452, 2014 WL 537021, at *11 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 10, 2014); see also Rodriguez v. Johns, Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-134, 2018 WL 4102854, at *2-3 (S.D. Ga. July 26, 2018), adopted by 2018 WL 4100695 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 28, 2018).

  5. Williams v. Geter

    Civil Action 2:20-cv-94 (S.D. Ga. Jul. 29, 2021)

    Thus, where Congress precludes judicial review of an agency decision by statute, judicial review of that decision is limited to whether the agency acted outside its statutory limits or violated the Constitution. See Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 597, 603 (1988); Santiago-Lebron v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 767 F.Supp.2d 1340, 1351 (S.D. Fla. 2011); Paradis v. Keller, 2011 WL 2790480, *4 n.3 (N.D.Ga. June 13, 2011); Klatch v. Rathman, No. 1:13-CV-01452, 2014 WL 537021, at *11 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 10, 2014). Additionally, where a challenge concerns a BOP Program Statement, courts give the BOP “some deference” when determining whether the Program Statement is a reasonable implementation of the BOP's relevant statutory authority.

  6. Freedland v. Mecklenberg

    5:21cv056-TKW/MAF (N.D. Fla. Jul. 23, 2021)

    In Program Statement 7310.04, the BOP set forth guidelines for referring prisoners to RRCs and, specifically, “[i]t directs the staff to ‘make recommendations for [RRC] placements based on assessments of inmate needs for services, public safety, and the necessity of the Bureau to manage its inmate population responsibly.” Klatch v. Rathman, No. 1:13cv1452-WMA, 2014 WL 537021, at *2 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 10, 2014); see www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/7310_004.pdf. In this case, Respondent has attached the Declaration of Lexanne Bozeman, Case Management Coordinator, FCI Marianna, explaining the “recommendation to the Warden of FCI Marianna to deny Petitioner's RRC placement request out of an abundance of caution and in an effort to prevent any harm coming to Petitioner, RRC Staff, or the public at large.”

  7. Zebrowski v. Geter

    CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:20-cv-50 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 17, 2021)

    Thus, where Congress precludes judicial review of an agency decision by statute, judicial review of that decision is limited to whether the agency acted outside its statutory limits or violated the Constitution. See Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 597, 603 (1988); Klatch v. Rathman, No. 1:13-CV-01452, 2014 WL 537021, at *11 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 10, 2014); Santiago-Lebron v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 767 F. Supp. 2d 1340, 1351 (S.D. Fla. 2011); Paradis v. Keller, 2011 WL 2790480, *4 n.3 (N.D. Ga. June 13, 2011). The BOP's determination regarding Zebrowski's good conduct time falls under the purview of § 3625.

  8. United States v. Walker

    CRIMINAL NO. 16-0274-WS (S.D. Ala. Jun. 20, 2019)

    The defendant has identified no rule or circumstance that could permit the Court to do so. E.g., Richardson v. Martinez, 2019 WL 1581417 at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2019); United States v. Johnson, 2019 WL 2501868 at *1 (D. Kan. 2019); United States v. Burkhart, 2019 WL 615354 at *2 (E.D. Ky. 2019); Carriera v. Johns, 2018 WL 4088075 at *5 n.5 (S.D. Ga. 2018); Klatch v. Rathman, 2014 WL 537021 at *10-11 (N.D. Ala. 2014); Delaney v. Grayer, 2010 WL 4963001 at *3 (N.D. Ga. 2010). -------- For the reasons set forth above, the defendant's motion for relief under the First Step Act is denied.

  9. Rodriguez v. Johns

    CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:17-cv-134 (S.D. Ga. Jul. 26, 2018)   Cited 6 times

    Thus, where Congress by statute has precluded judicial review of an agency decision, a court's review is limited to whether the agency has acted outside its statutory limits or has violated the Constitution. See Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 597, 603 (1988); Santiago-Lebron v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 767 F. Supp. 2d 1340, 1351 (S.D. Fla. 2011); Paradis v. Keller, 2011 WL 2790480, *4 n.3 (N.D. Ga. June 13, 2011); Klatch v. Rathman, No. 1:13-CV-01452-WMA, 2014 WL 537021, at *11 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 10, 2014). Additionally, where a challenge concerns a BOP program statement, courts give the BOP "some deference" when determining whether the program statement is a reasonable implementation of the BOP's relevant statutory authority.

  10. Kusyakov v. Stone

    CV 315-011 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 5, 2015)

    Where Congress by statute has precluded judicial review of an agency decision, a court's review is limited to whether the agency has acted outside its statutory limits or has violated the Constitution. See Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 603-04 (1988); Santiago-Lebron v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 767 F. Supp.2d 1340, 1351 (S.D. Fla. 2011); Klatch v. Rathman, No. 1:13-CV-01452-WMA, 2014 WL 537021, at *11 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 10, 2014); Paradis v. Keller, No. 1:10-CV-2354, 2011 WL 2790480, *4 n.3 (N.D. Ga. June 13, 2011). Here, § 3624(c), citing § 3621, explicitly leaves the designation of the place of confinement to the discretion of BOP. Indeed, other courts to address this issue have determined that § 3624(c) does not create a liberty interest because it refers to no mandatory procedures, and Petitioner cites no case law to the contrary.