Helen Cathren Morris v. United States of America

Filing 3

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. (See document for details). (ib)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HELEN CATHREN MORRIS,

12
13

Petitioner,
v.

14
15
16

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. ED CV 17-01664 AB (AFM)
ORDER SUMMARILY
DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

Respondent.

17
18

On August 17, 2017, petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by

19

a Person in Federal Custody (28 U.S.C. § 2241).

Petitioner seeks an order

20

recommending early release from federal custody upon her successful completion

21

of a residential drug abuse program (RDAP). The Petition must be dismissed

22

without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because petitioner’s

23

challenge to a discretionary decision to deny her a sentence reduction upon

24

completion of the RDAP is not subject to judicial review.

25

Congress has delegated to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) the duty to provide

26

appropriate substance abuse treatment for each prisoner the BOP determines has a

27

treatable condition of substance addiction or abuse. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). To carry

28

out this requirement, the BOP must make available residential drug abuse programs

1

(RDAP) for eligible prisoners.

18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(1).

2

successful completion of the RDAP, the BOP may reduce a prisoner’s sentence by

3

up to one year. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). “Determining which prisoners are

4

eligible to participate in RDAP is within the discretion of the BOP, as is the

5

decision to grant or deny eligible prisoners sentence reductions upon successful

6

completion of the program.” Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1226 (9th Cir. 2011).

7

Officials at the BOP found petitioner ineligible for a sentence reduction upon

8

completion of the RDAP because petitioner had a disqualifying conviction and

9

firearm enhancement. Petitioner was found disqualified for the sentence reduction

10

because she had a conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

11

marijuana. (ECF No. 1 at 19, 21.) Moreover, a search of petitioner’s home had

12

revealed “multiple firearms,” resulting in a two-point sentence enhancement for

13

possession of a firearm.

14

disqualifying because it involved “an offense that involved the carrying, possession,

15

or use of a firearm” and “an offense that, by its nature or conduct, present a serious

16

potential risk of physical force against the person or property of another.” (Id.)

17

Petitioner disputes these findings and points out that her co-defendant was found

18

eligible for the program. (ECF No. 1 at 15.) Petitioner seeks a recommendation

19

from this Court to the effect that she should be considered for the sentence

20

reduction upon her successful completion of the RDAP. (ECF No. 1 at 15-16.)

(ECF No. 1 at 19.)

As an incentive for

The firearm enhancement was

21

In 18 U.S.C. § 3625, Congress explicitly precluded judicial review of the

22

BOP’s individualized RDAP decisions by excluding any “determination, decision,

23

or order” made by the BOP pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621-3624 from the

24

provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (which authorizes federal courts to

25

hear actions involving a “legal wrong” suffered because of an agency action).

26

Consequently, the BOP’s discretionary determinations in implementing the RDAP

27

in individual cases are not subject to judicial review. See Reeb, 636 F.3d at 1227

28

(“[A]ny substantive decision by the BOP to admit a particular prisoner into RDAP,
2

1

or to grant or deny a sentence reduction for completion of the program, is not

2

reviewable by the district court.”). It follows that petitioner’s claim that the BOP

3

abused its discretion in her individual case by denying her a sentence reduction for

4

completion of the RDAP cannot be reviewed by the Court.

5

ORDER

6
7
8

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is summarily dismissed without prejudice
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

9
10

DATED: August 28, 2017

11
12
13

ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3