New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence: Government Website Contents Are Self-Authenticating

Download PDF

Bingham v. Barnhart, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106170 (E.D. Ky. June 26, 2018):

Petitioner Randall Dale Bingham has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [R. 1.] At the time his petition was filed, he was housed at the United States Penitentiary ("USP")-Manchester in Manchester, Kentucky. This matter is before the Court to conduct the initial screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Alexander v. Northern Bureau of Prisons, 419 F. App'x 544, 545 (6th Cir. 2011). A petition will be denied "if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (applicable to § 2241 petitions pursuant to Rule 1(b)).

On August 24, 2017, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Mr. Bingham was found guilty of violating the terms of his previously-imposed supervised release and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twelve (12) months and one (1) day with such time in federal custody to commence as of July 5, 2017. United States v. Bingham, 4:05-cr-047-HLM-1 (N.D. Ga. 2005) at R. 23. The court also recommended that Mr. Bingham be permitted to move into a halfway house as soon as practical for the remainder of his sentence. [*2]  Id.

In his § 2241 petition filed in this Court, Mr. Bingham raises two claims, one related to Good Time Credit ("GTC") to which he believes himself entitled, and the second claim seeking relief from the restitution amount ordered in his original underlying criminal case, United States v. Bingham, 1:97-cr-423-2 (N.D. Ill. 1997). He also seeks immediate placement in a halfway house.

However, before a prisoner may seek habeas relief under Section 2241, he must exhaust his administrative remedies within the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), which Mr. Bingham candidly admits that did not do. Fazzini v. Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, 473 F.3d 229, 231 (6th Cir. 2006); Campbell v. Barron, 87 F. App'x 577, 577 (6th Cir. 2004). The BOP has established a three-tiered Administrative Remedy Program whereby an inmate may progressively redress grievances at the institutional, Regional, and Central Office (national) levels. See generally 28 C.F.R. § 542.10, et seq.1

Exhaustion is an affirmative defense, thus a court may not deny a habeas petition upon initial screening merely because the petitioner "fail[s] to plead or attach exhibits with proof of exhaustion," to his or her petition. Luedtke v. Berkebile, 704 F.3d 465, 466 (6th Cir. 2013). Here, however, Mr. Bingham freely admits in his petition that he has failed to pursue his administrative remedies through the BOP, explaining his frustrations with pursuing administrative remedies [*3]  with respect to other, unrelated claims in the past. [R. 1 at p. 2-3] Bingham also argues that exhaustion of his GTC claim would take too long [Id. at p. 4-5] and exhaustion with respect to his restitution claim is futile because "BOP policy of (IFRP) Inmate Financial Responsibility Program does not allow relief of restitution." Id. at 6.

The case law is clear and uniform that where such a defect is apparent from the pleading itself, it may be dismissed without prejudice upon initial review. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214-15, 127 S. Ct. 910, 166 L. Ed. 2d 798 (2007) (district court can dismiss complaint sua sponte when it is apparent from the face of the complaint that claim is barred by affirmative defense); Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 2007) (where complaint made clear that prisoner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, district court may dismiss it sua sponte for failure to state a claim); Fletcher v. Myers, No. 5:11-141-KKC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69156 (E.D. Ky. May 17, 2012), aff'd, No. 12-5630, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1180 (6th Cir. Jan. 4, 2013) ("Because Fletcher's failure to exhaust, or to attempt to exhaust, administrative remedies is apparent from the face of his complaint, the district court properly dismissed Fletcher's complaint on that basis.").

In addition, the Court notes that a review of the BOP's "Inmate [*4]  Locater" website shows that Mr. Bingham absconded from the custody of the BOP on May 23, 2018. See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited June 11, 2018). The Court takes judicial notice of records and information located on government websites because they are self-authenticating under Fed. R. Evid. 902. Qiu Yun Chen v. Holder, 715 F.3d 207, 212 (7th Cir. 2013) ("A document posted on a government website is presumptively authentic if government sponsorship can be verified by visiting the website itself."). The fact that Mr. Bingham has absconded from BOP custody raises serious questions over whether or not he is considered to be "in custody" for purposes of this Court's jurisdiction over Mr. Bingham's habeas claims. See Prieto v. Gluch, 913 F.2d 1159, 1162 (6th Cir.1990)(in order for a court to have jurisdiction over petitioner's habeas claims under § 2241, the petitioner must be in government custody).

Regardless, because Mr. Bingham admits that he filed his petition before pursuing his administrative remedies with the BOP, the Court will deny the petition as prematurely filed. This denial is without prejudice to Mr. Bingham's right to file a new petition, and necessarily does not reach the merits of his claims.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Petitioner Randall Dale Bingham's petition for [*5]  a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [R. 1] is DENIEDWITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature;

2. This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court's docket;

3. Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

 

1 After the inmate has attempted to resolve his respective matter of concern informally, an initial request is made to the Warden at the institution level. If the inmate is dissatisfied with the Warden's response, he may appeal to the Regional Director within 20 days of receiving the Warden's response. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.15. If he is dissatisfied with the Regional Director's response, he may appeal to the General Counsel in the BOP's Central Office, Washington, D.C., within 30 days of receiving the Regional Director's response. Id. The Administrative Remedy Program allows an inmate to seek formal review of an issue relating to any aspect of his or her confinement, to include appeals of disciplinary decisions by the DHO. 28 C.F.R. § 542.10. An appeals from a DHO decision does not require an initial filing at the institutional level and is initially submitted to the Regional Director for the region where the inmate is located at the time of filing. 28 C.F.R. 542.14(d)(2).

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice