Too Many Mistakes! Judge Slams Door on Raniere’s BOP Lawsuit!

(All paintings by MK10ART.)

U.S. District Judge Raner Collins dismissed Keith Raniere’s lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, BOP director Colette Peters, the warden at USP Tucson, and others at the BOP.

He alleged they deprived him of contact with his lawyers and kept him in the SHU.

Lawsuit to Compel BOP

Raniere filed a lawsuit to compel the BOP to cease infringing on his rights.

The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) filed a motion for dismissal, and the judge ruled in favor of the BOP. The case has been closed.

The judge cited Raniere’s lawyers’ errors.

Missed Deadlines and Mistakes

The judge said he granted numerous extensions to respond to the motion to dismiss, but Raniere failed to file it on time.

When Raniere did respond, he “forgot to include a statement of facts” — supporting his case or refuting the BOP’s claims.

Instead, he attached only exhibits without explanation.

Clerical Errors and Blame

Realizing this mistake, Raniere’s lawyers asked the court for permission to “file the missing documents later” and blamed it on a “clerical error” by a staff member.

However, the attorneys didn’t provide any “details” or proof of this clerical error, such as a statement from the staff member.

Nunc Pro Tunc and Late Filings

Raniere wanted the court to accept the late documents as if he had filed on time (called “nunc pro tunc”). The court said this legal principle can only be used to correct the mistakes the court made, “not” mistakes a plaintiff made.

Raniere was also “10 days late” in filing a “Reply” without asking the court’s permission to file late.

Failure to Follow Rules

Finally, Raniere failed to comply with Rule 56(c)(1), which requires specific references to evidence, as well as the local court rules, which mandate numbered paragraphs and specific references to the record.

The main reason the judge dismissed Raniere’s case is that he failed to go through the complete administrative process designed by the BOP.

Exhausting Administrative Remedies

Federal law requires prisoners who want to sue the Bureau of Prisons to exhaust the lengthy and cumbersome administrative remedies for grievances.

The law was meant to limit lawsuits alleging BOP mistreatment of prisoners.

The BP-9, BP-10, and BP-11 Process

Inmates must first try to resolve issues informally with prison staff. Then, if that does not work, they can file a BP-9 form with their complaint.

If the BOP rejects the BP-9, as it often does, an inmate can file a BP-10 which goes to a higher level at the BOP. If a higher-up BOP official rejects the BP 10, which they almost always do, the prisoner can file a BP-11 form where still another higher, higher-up will look at it and reject it.

Raniere’s Rejected Efforts

Raniere had filed multiple forms. Some, the BOP rejected due to mistakes such as failing to attach the correct paperwork or missing deadlines. Others the BOP simply rejected.

In January 2022, Raniere, locked in the SHU, filed Remedy No. 1147194-F1, asking to return to the general population. The BOP rejected his desire to escape the torture of the SHU because he didn’t follow the proper steps for informal resolution first.

The BOP denied other administrative efforts because he failed to attach the correct documents or missed deadlines.

Despite his claims of BOP injustice, Raniere did not get his day in court.

A System Designed for Delay

The system is designed to delay court hearings while a prisoner goes through a lengthy administrative process, usually resulting in denial.

When the prisoner goes to court, the judges usually support the BOP. They argue the BOP is best equipped to manage its prisoners and they won’t replace their judgment with the BOP’s expertise in correctional matters.

Raniere made it easy for the court to dismiss his case. He failed to exhaust his BOP “remedies.”

Had he done that, the result would have been no different. The judge would have likely ruled the BOP knows best whether a man should remain in the SHU for his protection or whether his phone calls to attorneys are too cumbersome for the prison.

Bronfman’s Money Wasted

Raniere spent perhaps several hundred thousand of Clare Bronfman’s money to learn — when you are in custody, you can’t beat the people who hold you in custody.

Raniere claimed the administration at USP Tucson was engaged in a campaign to hinder his ability to exhaust administrative remedies.

Raniere Can’t Bully Anyone From SHU

Inside prison and especially from inside the SHU, Raniere cannot bully anyone. Clare Bronfman’s money can’t bully anyone.

Now that the judge has dismissed the case, there is nothing to prevent the BOP from transferring him to another prison, keeping him in the SHU, or doing anything the Vanguard himself would have done to his enemies.

Vanguard’s Defeat

The USP Tucson warden might tell Raniere, “he who has the most joy wins!”

Or better still, “Viva Executive Success!”

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.

See Full Bio