Travis Emory Correll v. The United States of America, et al


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Pasco M. Bowman and Steven M. Colloton (UNPUBLISHED) [4350315] [15-2188]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2188 ___________________________ Travis Emory Correll, lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant, v. The United States of America; Loretta E. Lynch, U.S. Attorney General1; Charles E. Samuels, Jr., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Paul M. Laird, Regional Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; W. Scott Willis, Warden, Federal Prison Camp Yankton, lllllllllllllllllllllRespondents - Appellees. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls ____________ Submitted: November 30, 2015 Filed: December 29, 2015 ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. 1 Loretta E. Lynch has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). Appellate Case: 15-2188 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2015 Entry ID: 4350315 Federal inmate Travis Correll appeals after the district court2 dismissed his two pro se civil actions, in which he claimed that 18 U.S.C. § 3621, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, violate equal protection because they authorize early release only for nonviolent offenders who both have a history of substance abuse and complete a residential drug-abuse treatment program. We conclude that the district court properly denied Correll’s habeas petition and dismissed his civil-rights action. See United States v. Lurie, 207 F.3d 1075, 1076 (8th Cir. 2000); Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 791, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). “There is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence.” Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979). The government’s refusal to offer early release to Correll does not implicate a fundamental right, so § 3621 is permissible if it is supported by a rational basis. Congress rationally could have concluded that substance-abuse treatment for prisoners could help reduce the extraordinarily high rate of recidivism among offenders who have a history of substance abuse, and that an early-release incentive was necessary to draw into treatment inmates who might otherwise be unwilling to undergo drug treatment. See H.R. Rep. No. 103-320 (1993). The statute is thus supported by a rational basis. See Brikova v. Holder, 699 F.3d 1005, 1008 (8th Cir. 2012); see also Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 25 (2003). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 2 The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, adopting the reports and recommendations of the Honorable Veronica L. Duffy, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota. -2- Appellate Case: 15-2188 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2015 Entry ID: 4350315

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?