Dracy Lamont McKneely v. Jack Fox

Filing 6

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICION by Judge Robert J. Timlin. (See document for details). Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (ib)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DRACY LAMONT McKNEELY,

12
13
14
15
16

Petitioner,
vs.
JACK FOX/BOP, et al.,
Respondents.

CASE NO. CV 15-01268 RT (RZ)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
HABEAS ACTION FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION

17

Petitioner, a federal inmate, seeks 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas relief because he

18

believes the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) erred in deciding to house him at a high security

19

facility. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed the Petition and the records

20

on file, including the Declaration filed by the Petitioner on March 9, 2015. The Court will

21

dismiss the action summarily for lack of jurisdiction.

22

I.

23

INTRODUCTION

24

Petitioner is imprisoned for a 1994 federal conviction in Colorado for

25

trafficking what that district court determined was over four kilograms of cocaine. See

26

generally U.S. v. McKneely, 69 F.3d 1067 (10th Cir. 1995) (affirming conviction and

27

sentence). Now assigned to high security housing at Lompoc, Petitioner prefers to be

28

housed in a lower security prison within the BOP system. The reason he remains in higher

1

security housing is that the BOP found that Petitioner’s drug trafficking organization was

2

a “large scale” one. Petitioner disputes that finding, which automatically categorized his

3

offense, for housing-assignment purposes, as one of the “Greatest Severity” necessitating

4

higher security. See Pet. at 5. Petitioner seeks habeas to compel the BOP to remove its

5

“large scale” finding, thus eliminating the “Greatest Severity” categorization, and to assign

6

him corresponding lower-security housing. The Court lacks jurisdiction to review such

7

individualized, fact-based and discretionary BOP decisions.

8

II.

9

APPLICABLE LAW

10

A.

The BOP’s Authority Over Its Prisoners’ Housing Assignments

11

The BOP generally has the authority to choose where to locate federal

12

prisoners within the federal prison system. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), the BOP may

13

designate the place of an inmate’s imprisonment, including transfers “at any time.”

14

Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180, 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2008). Such decisions are

15

discretionary, but the BOP must consider the following five factors in making them:

16
17

(1)

the resources of the facility contemplated;

18

(2)

the nature and circumstances of the offense;

19

(3)

the history and characteristics of the prisoner;

20

(4)

any statement by the court that imposed the sentence –
(A)

21

imprisonment was determined to be warranted; or

22

(B)

23

26

recommending a type of penal or correctional facility as
appropriate; and

24
25

concerning the purpose for which the sentence to

(5)

any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission
pursuant to section 994(a)(2) of title 28.

27
28
-2-

1

18 U.S.C. § 3621(b); Rodriguez, 541 F.3d at 1188. (Here, the critical subsection is 2, “the

2

nature and circumstances of the offense.”) But another statute provides that the judicial-

3

review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act “do not apply to the making of any

4

determination, decision, or order” under 18 U.S.C. sections 3621 through 3624 (“this

5

subchapter”). 18 U.S.C. § 3625. The Court next turns to the consequences of this second

6

statute.

7

B.

Courts Lack Jurisdiction To Review Individualized, Discretionary BOP

8

Housing Assignments

9

As this Court explained in a similar action by a federal prisoner challenging

10

his federal-prison housing assignment,

11
12

The court does not have subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the

13

BOP’s individualized determination of his request. In Reeb v. Thomas, 636

14

F.3d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit determined that 18 U.S.C.

15

§ 3625 precludes judicial review of “any determination” by BOP made

16

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621-3624.3 That includes actions brought pursuant

17

to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and habeas. Id. at 1225-27.

18

“To find that prisoners can bring habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to

19

challenge the BOP’s discretionary determinations made pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

20

§ 3621 would be inconsistent with the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3625.” Id. at

21

1227 . . . .
Although Reeb involved a determination regarding the residential

22

3

23

drug abuse program (“RDAP”) as opposed to a CCC [community

24

corrections center] or home detention, the difference is immaterial as

25

the RDAP determination is also made pursuant to § 3621.

26

Brown v. Sanders, No. 11-4066 JST (AGR), 2011 WL 4899919, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1,

27

2011) (R&R), accepted, 2011 WL 4896513 (Oct. 10, 2011). Reeb left open the proverbial

28

door to some kinds of habeas challenges to BOP decision-making. “Although judicial
-3-

1

review remains available for allegations that BOP action is contrary to established federal

2

law, violates the United States Constitution, or exceeds its statutory authority, Reeb’s

3

habeas petition alleges only that the BOP erred in his particular case.” 636 F.3d at 1228.

4
5

III.

6

DISCUSSION

7

Like the prisoners in Reeb and Brown, Petitioner argues “only that the BOP

8

erred in his particular case.” He does not genuinely contend that the BOP action was

9

contrary to federal law. To be sure, Petitioner strives to label his way around § 3625’s no-

10

judicial-review rule. For example, he alleges, on page 1 and throughout his petition, that

11

the BOP’s “actions exceed[] its statutory authority.” But behind and notwithstanding such

12

labelings, the gravamen of Petitioner’s complaint is simply that the BOP erred in finding

13

that his drug ring was a “large scale” one.

14

Before moving on, the Court notes that it is possible that the “large scale”

15

finding was wrong. On the one hand, Petitioner asserts that the trial judge, in aggravating

16

Petitioner’s sentence over two decades ago for Petitioner’s having a leadership role in the

17

drug enterprise, explained that “in relatively small enterprises such as” Petitioner’s, “the

18

distinction between” leaders and non-leaders is “less significant than in larger enterprises

19

that tend to have clearly delineated divisions of responsibility.” Pet. at 5. (Petitioner

20

supplies no citation whereby the Court can verify this quotation. Morever, the trial judge

21

may have been referring to the number of traffickers, not the quantity of cocaine they were

22

trafficking.) Petitioner also includes exhibits suggesting that, as recently as one year ago,

23

the BOP classified him as only a “High” public safety risk, in contrast to the apparently

24

new classification of “Greatest” risk, due solely to a new finding that his 1993 commitment

25

offense involved “large scale” drug trafficking. On the other hand, as noted at the outset,

26
27
28
-4-

1

the trial court found that Petitioner’s underlying conduct included distributing over four

2

kilograms of cocaine. That amount suggests a “large scale” drug distribution business.1

3

But Congress has determined that such factual disputes affecting BOP housing

4

assignments are to be determined by the BOP and in the administrative appeals process,

5

not in federal courts. Even if the BOP did err in finding Petitioner’s drug-trafficking

6

organization to be “large,” that finding did not violate federal law or otherwise exceed the

7

BOP’s authority. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3625, Reeb and Brown, this Court lacks jurisdiction

8

to review the BOP’s alleged error. See Bride v. McClintock, No. CV-13-00136-TUC-JGZ

9

(D. Ariz. Jan. 12, 2015) (citing § 3625 and Reeb in dismissing § 2241 petition by prisoner

10

challenging BOP’s “large scale drug activity” finding and resulting assignment to a higher-

11

security prison).

12

IV.

13

CONCLUSION

14

On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Magistrate Judge dismissed the petition with

15

leave to amend within 21 days, to cure shortcomings in the Petition. See Docket Entry #3.

16

Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition on March 4, 2015. See Docket Entry # 4. For the

17

reasons stated above, the First Amended Petition contains allegations of BOP error in its

18

housing determination for Petitioner, over which the Court lacks jurisdiction. Therefore,

19

for the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice for lack of

20

jurisdiction.

21
22

DATED: March 25, 2015

23

__
ROBERT J. TIMLIN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

1

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the 1993 street price of cocaine,
in 2010 dollars, was $183 per gram. See UNODC chart, available at http://www.unodc.org/
unodc/secured/wdr/Cocaine_Heroin_Prices.pdf. The court takes judicial notice of these adjudicative
facts, as they are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to a source whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questioned. See Fed. R. Evid. 201 and advisory committee notes. Based on that dollar
amount, the street value of four kilograms of cocaine in 1993 was $732,000 in 2010 dollars.
-5-