Matrajt v. The United States Prob. Office For The W. Dist. of Pa.
| Decision Date | 20 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 2: 20-cv-1660 |
| Parties | DIEGO TOBIAS MATRAJT and MARK DANIEL DEHAVEN, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES PROBATION OFFICE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, BRIAN W. GRAY, ALEXIS ZELLEFROW and NICHOLAS CAPACCIO, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF 44) the Amended Complaint (ECF 30) and Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief (ECF 18). For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion and deny Plaintiffs' Motion.
The plaintiffs here are Diego Tobias Matrajt and Mark Daniel DeHaven. The Amended Complaint, the operative pleading, names as defendants: (1) the United States Probation Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania (“WDPA USPO”) (2) Brian Gray, the Chief Probation Officer of the WDPA USPO (3) Alexis Zellefrow, a supervisory officer with the WDPA USPO; and (4) Nicholas Capaccio, who at the time of the events alleged in the Amended Complaint was a probation officer with the WDPA USPO. (Amend. Compl. p. 1 and ¶¶ 24-27.) The Amended Complaint names Gray, Zellefrow and Capaccio as defendants in their official capacities only. (Id.)
All claims asserted against Defendants in the Amended Complaint are premised upon the WDPA USPO's denial of a request from Matrajt's sentencing court, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (“Sentencing Court”), to transfer supervision of Matrajt to the Western District of Pennsylvania upon his release to his term of supervised release. By exercising this alleged “flagrant abuse of discretion and unlawful use of authority, ” Plaintiffs assert, the WDPA USPO “is knowingly and deliberately preventing Plaintiffs from exercising their rights to intimate association by substantially and directly interfering with their ability to enter into and maintain a marital relationship.” (Id. ¶ 3.)
In 2012, Matrajt appeared before the Sentencing Court and pleaded guilty to a three-count indictment. The Indictment charged him in Count One with Distribution of Child Pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), based on the online sharing of P2P files containing child pornography with an undercover agent; in Count Two with Possession of Child Pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), based on his possession of surreptitious web cam videos that he produced of children changing for portrait photographs at his residence that was saved on his computer; and in Count Three with Possession of Child Pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), based on child pornography videos of boys age 12 and under found on his computer. (ECF 41 in Matrajt, No. 1:12-cr-20343.)
Matrajt was sentenced to a 120-month term of imprisonment, to be followed by twenty-five years of supervised release that included special conditions for sex offenders, as well as the standard condition of supervised release that prohibits him from associating with any person convicted of a felony (which the Amended Complaint refers to as “Standard Condition No. 9”). (ECF 59 in Matrajt, Case No. 1:12-cr-20343.) He was placed in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), which designated him to FCC Coleman Low, located in Sumterville, Florida.
In 2015, DeHaven pleaded guilty to one count of Receipt of Child Pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(B) and (b)(1). He was sentenced in the Middle District of Florida to a term of imprisonment of 97 months, followed by 10 years of supervised release. DeHaven's conditions of supervised release also included special conditions for sex offenders, as well as the standard condition that prohibits him from associating with any person convicted of a felony. (ECF 31 in DeHaven, No. 6:14-cr-244).
According to the Amended Complaint, Matrajt and DeHaven met while they were inmates in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and incarcerated at FCC Coleman Low. They have been in a committed relationship since 2017, are engaged and intend to live together and get married upon release from prison. (Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 7, 9, 37.)
The BOP calculated Matrajt's projected release date to be August 7, 2021 (Id. ¶ 30.) DeHaven had an earlier release date, and he was approved by the USPO to be released to the WDPA for supervision upon his release from BOP custody. DeHaven currently resides in Everson, Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 23, 36.)
In November 2019, Matrajt submitted a release plan to his BOP case manager requesting a change in his release location to an address outside the Southern District of Florida. Specifically, Matrajt proposed that he live in Everson, Pennsylvania with his parents in a rental house provided by DeHaven's mother.[3] (Id. ¶¶ 30, 37, 42; see also ECF 90 p. 18 in Matrajt, No. 1:12-cr-20343.) Matrajt's BOP case manager forwarded a release package to the WDPA USPO for review. It was reviewed by Capaccio, who conducted a site visit of the proposed residence in Everson and interviewed DeHaven's mother via telephone. (Id. ¶ 30.)
According to the Amended Complaint, Matrajt was informed by his BOP case manager in March 2020 that the WDPA USPO denied Matrajt's relocation request for three reasons: (1) Matrajt did not have prior or existing family ties to the Western District of Pennsylvania; (2) the proposed residence in Everson, Pennsylvania was rural with limited access to employment and transportation; and (3) the first two factors would make it difficult for Matrajt to comply with the sex offender conditions of his supervised release. (Id. ¶ 31.)
The Amended Complaint alleges that from March to August 2020, Plaintiffs sent various letters to the WDPA USPO and the USPO for the Southern District of Florida (“SDFL USPO”) requesting reconsideration of the denial because they wanted to cohabitate and get married upon Matrajt's release prison. (Id. ¶¶ 32-35, 38-42.) In April 2020, an officer with the SDFL USPO advised Plaintiff “that it appeared all of [his] ties were to Florida and asked him to have his Case Manager submit a release plan to the SDFL.” (Id. ¶ 34.) Gray was one of the individuals to whom Matrajt sent a letter. Additionally, DeHaven's mother spoke with Zellefrow and Capaccio and Matrajt's father attempted to speak with Capaccio. Neither USPO reconsidered its position. (Id. ¶¶ 32-35, 38-42.)
In August 2020, Matrajt spoke with his BOP case manager and asked her to submit another request to change his release location to Everson, Pennsylvania. She advised him that she had to “wait a year after the last denial before submitting [Matrajt's] new relocation request[, ]” and thus “contrary to [Matrajt's] request, she had him sign a release plan to the SDFL.” (Id. ¶ 42.) In October 2020, Matrajt's BOP counselor advised him that he would “never make it to the WDPA because you've done something to piss off the higher-ups and they now have a personal grudge against you.” (Id. ¶ 42.)
On October 19, 2020, Matrajt filed in the Sentencing Court a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2), which he later amended, requesting that he be permitted to serve his supervised release in the WDPA. Further, he asked the Sentencing Court to modify the standard condition of supervised release that prohibits him from associating with any person convicted of a felony. (ECF 89, 90, 97 and 98 in Matrajt, No. 1:12-cr-20343.)
On November 24, 2020, the Sentencing Court denied Matrajt's request without prejudice, explaining that it was premature. The Sentencing Court directed that (ECF 102 p. 2 in Matrajt, No. 1:12-cr-20343.) The Sentencing Court also noting other concerns, “including [Matrajt's] failure to avail himself of sex offender counseling during his incarceration, which also weigh against this transfer.” (Id. p. 2.)
In January 2021, Matrajt filed with the Sentencing Court an emergency motion for modification of his conditions of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2). (ECF 108 in Matrajt, No. 1:12-cr-20343.) Matrajt requested, in relevant part, that the Sentencing Court (1) “modify standard condition No. 9” of the conditions of his supervised release so that he could cohabitate with DeHaven; and (2) “add a special condition of supervised release requiring that upon release from prison, [he] is allowed to temporarily reside in the WDPA under ‘interim courtesy supervision' by this district (jurisdiction to remain in SDFL.)” (ECF 108 p. 1 in Matrajt, No. 1:12-cr-20343.)
The Sentencing Court initially granted these requests in an order dated March 12, 2021. (ECF 117 in Matrajt, No. 1:12-cr-20343.) However, it rescinded that order on April 21, 2021, explaining:
To continue reading
Request your trial