Culbertson v. Winn

Filing 13

ORDER that the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Fed/2241) filed by Mark Culbertson is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to prepare a judgment and close this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Leslie A Bowman on 8/1/2014. (MFR)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Mark Culbertson, 9 Petitioner, 10 vs. 11 Louis Winn, 12 Respondent. 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV-13-090-TUC-LAB ORDER 14 15 On February 12, 2013, Mark Culbertson, an inmate confined in the United States 16 Penitentiary in Tucson, Arizona, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Title 28, 17 United States Code, Section 2241. (Doc. 1) Culbertson claims the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 18 abused its discretion by refusing to admit him into the Residential Drug Treatment Program 19 (RDAP), a substance abuse treatment program through which an inmate can shorten his 20 sentence. Id. 21 22 Magistrate Judge Bowman presides over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 9) The petition will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 23 24 Summary of the Case 25 On August 28, 2006, the District Court for the Central District of California sentenced 26 Culbertson to 120 months in prison for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 27 methamphetamine. (Doc. 7, p. 8) Before his sentencing, Culbertson submitted a urine specimen 28 1 to pretrial services, which tested positive for methamphetamine. (Doc. 1, p. 13) Culbertson, 2 however, chose not to discuss his previous drug use with his probation officer. Id. 3 In November of 2011, the BOP determined Culbertson did not qualify for the RDAP 4 (Doc. 7, p. 9) Complex Warden Craig Apker explained there was insufficient information in 5 the presentence report to prove Culbertson demonstrated a pattern of substance abuse or 6 dependence in the year before his arrest. (Doc. 1, p. 13) Culbertson challenged this 7 determination at all administrative levels, but he was unsuccessful. (Doc. 7, p. 2) He now 8 appeals to this Court, arguing that the BOP’s decision denying him RDAP eligibility was an 9 abuse of discretion. (Doc. 1, p. 4) 10 11 Discussion 12 The BOP “has broad discretion over the entire drug-treatment process within the federal 13 corrections system, beginning with determining which inmates ever enter substance-abuse 14 programs.” Downey v. Crabtree, 100 F.3d 662, 670 (9th Cir. 1996). An inmate dissatisfied with 15 the BOP’s initial determination of his treatment eligibility may seek review through the BOP’s 16 Administrative Remedy Program, which “provides a vehicle for aggrieved inmates to challenge 17 such discretionary BOP determinations.” Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 2011). 18 Culbertson apparently has done that, but he remains dissatisfied with the final decision of the 19 BOP. He petitions this court to overturn the final decision of the BOP. This court, however, 20 lacks the jurisdiction to do that. 21 The Inapplicability of the Administrative Procedure Act statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3625, 22 exempts substantive decisions of the BOP from the judicial review provisions of the 23 Administrative Procedure Act. Reeb, 636 F.3d at 1227. “Accordingly, any substantive decision 24 by the BOP to admit a particular prisoner into the RDAP, or to grant or deny a sentence 25 reduction for completion of the program, is not reviewable by the district court.” Id. 26 In this case, Culbertson argues the BOP decision denying him entry into the RDAP 27 program was an abuse of discretion. This Court does not have jurisdiction to review that 28 decision. Accordingly, -2- 1 2 IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Title 28, United 3 States Code, Section 2241, filed on February 12, 2013 by Mark Culbertson is DENIED. (Doc. 4 1) 5 The Clerk is directed to prepare a judgment and close this case. 6 7 DATED this 1st day of August, 2014. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

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?