Horton v. Keller (INMATE 3)
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 6/9/10. (djy, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION E U G E N E HORTON, P e titio n e r, v. J.A. KELLER, R e sp o n d e n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civil Action No. 2:10cv85-WC (WO)
M E M O R A N D U M OPINION T h is is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed on F e b ru a ry 1, 2010. (Doc. No. 1.) I. BACKGROUND
T h e petitioner, Eugene Horton ("Horton"), is currently incarcerated at the Federal P riso n Camp in Montgomery, Alabama, serving a 91-month sentence, imposed upon him in 2 0 0 5 by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, upon his c o n v ictio n for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of a firearm in re la tio n to a drug trafficking crime. In his petition, Horton claims that the Federal Bureau o f Prisons ("BOP") has failed to properly consider the mandated statutory criteria in d e te rm in in g the duration of his placement in a residential reentry center ("RRC") for the final p o rtio n of his federal sentence, in violation of the Second Chance Act. In compliance with this court's orders, the respondent has filed an answer in which h e argues that (1) Horton's habeas petition is not ripe for court review, because at the time
h e filed his petition, he was not close enough to the end of his sentence to qualify for c o n sid e ra tio n for placement in an RRC under the Second Chance Act and the BOP had made n o determination regarding his RRC placement; and (2) even if Horton were eligible for c o n sid e ra tio n for placement in an RRC at the time he filed his petition, he has not exhausted a d m in is tra tiv e remedies with respect to his claims. (Doc. No. 13.) In response, Horton has f ile d a traverse. (Doc. No. 16.) II. DISCUSSION
B y his petition, Horton seeks to have the BOP consider him for placement in an RRC f o r the final portion of his sentence, for the maximum amount of time allowed, pursuant to th e authority of the Second Chance Act of 2007. T h e Second Chance Act amended 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(a) and 3624(c). Pursuant to the S e c o n d Chance Act, the BOP staff is required to review inmates for RRC placement 17-19 m o n th s before their projected release date, and inmates are to be individually considered u s in g the five factors listed in § 3621(b). When he filed his petition, on February 1, 2010, H o r to n 's projected release date was January 18, 2012. At that time, Horton was not close e n o u g h to the end of his sentence to qualify under the Second Chance Act for consideration f o r placement in an RRC for a portion of the remainder of his sentence. Consequently, H o rto n 's case is not ripe for review. III. CONCLUSION A c c o rd in g ly, the court concludes that the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus
re lie f filed by Horton should be dismissed without prejudice. A separate final judgment will be entered. D o n e this 9 th day of June, 2010.
/s /W a lla c e Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?