In a recent ruling, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a case brought by Gregory Bartko against the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The court found that Bartko's claims regarding the application of time credits to his supervised release were not valid. This decision affects Bartko's efforts to reduce his supervised release term and highlights ongoing legal questions about how time credits are applied.
Gregory Bartko, a former lawyer who served time for fraud, filed a lawsuit against the BOP and its officials after he claimed that he earned time credits while incarcerated that should reduce his term of supervised release. Bartko argued that the BOP had a policy refusing to apply these credits to supervised release, which he believed was unlawful. The case, identified as Civil Action No. 2026-0489, was presided over by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg.
Bartko's legal troubles began when he was convicted in 2010 for multiple counts of fraud and conspiracy. After serving his prison sentence, he was placed on a three-year term of supervised release. Bartko's motivation for the lawsuit stemmed from his desire to regain his law license, which he could not do while still under supervision. He initially filed a habeas petition in Georgia, but it was dismissed due to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Instead of re-filing, Bartko decided to challenge the BOP's policy under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and also included a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) claim.
In his ruling, Judge Boasberg stated that Bartko had not plausibly alleged any final agency action by the BOP that would allow him to challenge the policy under the APA. He noted, "As Bartko has not plausibly alleged any final agency action, the Court will dismiss the claim and deny Plaintiff’s Motion for a PI on it." The court also rejected Bartko's request for a preliminary injunction on his FOIA claim, although that claim was not dismissed.
The court's decision is significant as it clarifies the legal standards for challenging agency actions under the APA. Bartko's case highlights a broader issue regarding how time credits are applied to supervised release across different jurisdictions, as courts have been divided on this issue. The ruling emphasized that the BOP does not have the authority to alter the terms of supervised release, which are determined by the sentencing judge.
Moving forward, this ruling may influence other inmates who seek to apply time credits to their supervised release terms. It also underscores the importance of understanding the legal framework surrounding supervised release and the limitations of agency policies. While Bartko's FOIA claim remains active, the dismissal of his APA claim may set a precedent for similar cases in the future, particularly regarding the need for clear evidence of agency action.
As for what’s next, Bartko may still pursue his FOIA claim, which could provide him access to records related to the BOP's policies on time credits. However, the court's ruling suggests that Bartko will face challenges in proving his case. It remains to be seen if Bartko will appeal the dismissal of his APA claim or if he will focus solely on the FOIA aspect of his lawsuit.