Gaddis v. Taylor
MEMORANDUM OPINION - the court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS the recommendation. Accordingly, petitioners claim for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2241 is due to be dismissed with prejudice. A separate order will be entered. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 8/9/2018. (KWC)
2018 Aug-09 PM 02:44
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
) Case No. 1:15-cv-01155-VEH-TMP
The magistrate judge filed his report and recommendation on July 9, 2018,
recommending the court dismiss petitioner’s 28 U.SC.§ 2241 petition for habeas
corpus relief. (Doc. 31). Petitioner filed objections on July 25, 2018. (Doc. 32).
In his objections, petitioner restates his claim that he could not exhaust his
administrative remedies because they were unavailable to him (doc. 32 at 1) and
re-alleges his claim that prison officials violated his right to due process by
wrongfully denying him a sentence reduction under the Residential Drug Abuse
Program (“RDAP”) pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3621(e). (Id. at 1-2).
petitioner fails to address the magistrate judge’s conclusion that notwithstanding
petitioner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, the petition is due to be
dismissed because inmates have no constitutional right to, or other protected
liberty interest in, participating in RDAP or receiving a sentence reduction for
completing such a program. Cook v. Wiley, 208 F.3d 1314, 1322-23 (11th Cir.
Indeed, since § 3621(e) sentence reduction “is left to the unfettered
discretion of the [Bureau of Prisons], the statute does not create a constitutionally
protected liberty interest.” Id. at 1323.
Having now carefully considered de novo all the materials in the court file,
including the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the court
ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS the recommendation.
petitioner’s claim for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2241 is due to be
dismissed with prejudice. A separate order will be entered.
The court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
To make such a showing, a “petitioner must demonstrate that
reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional
claims debatable or wrong,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), or that
“the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotations omitted). This
court finds petitioner’s claims do not satisfy either standard.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of the foregoing to the petitioner.
DONE this 9th day of August, 2018.
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
United States District 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?