Spears v. Rios
Filing
18
ORDER Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/10/11. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
CHARLES SPEARS,
13
Petitioner,
14
v.
15
16
H.A. RIOS, JR., Warden,
Respondent.
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:09-cv-01253 MJS HC
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. 16]
18
19
Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
20
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Both parties have
21
consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. Local Rule 305(b).
22
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
23
Petitioner was convicted in the Northern District of Illinois to a term of 102 months for
24
violations of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), Felon in Possession of a Firearm, and 18 U.S.C. § 2 and §
25
922(a)(1)(A), Aiding and Abetting the Dealing in Firearms without a License.
26
committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) as of August 30, 2004. Petitioner’s
27
projected release date was July 10, 2011.
28
On February 3, 2009, Petitioner requested a transfer to a residential re-entry center
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
He was
-1-
1
(RRC) for the remainder of his sentence. His request was denied, but the matter was again
2
discussed at ensuing
3
respectively. On June 30, 2010, Petitioner was recommended for a 150-180 day placement
4
in the RCC program.1 (Answer, Ex. 1, Attachment 3, ECF No. 16.)
program review meetings in January 2010, and June, 2010,
5
After Petitioner was denied placement in February, 2009, he initiated and completed
6
the administrative remedy process. Respondent does not assert that Petitioner failed to
7
exhaust his administrative remedies.
8
On July 20, 2009, Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition. Petitioner appears
9
to make two arguments in his federal habeas petition. First, Petitioner argues that the BOP
10
policy with respect to analyzing an inmate's request to transfer to an RRC before Petitioner's
11
sentence has twelve months remaining is in conflict with the Second Chance Act. (See Pet.
12
at p. 4-6.) Second, Petitioner argues Respondent failed to consider the individual factors in
13
determining Petitioner’s eligibility for the RCC program. (See id. at p. 5.) Respondent filed an
14
answer to the petition on August 13, 2010.
15
II.
APPLICABLE STANDARD OF HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW
16
Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the
17
United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Relief is available if a federal prisoner can show he is
18
"in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C.
19
§ 2241(c)(3). Petitioner's claims are proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and not 28 U.S.C. § 2255
20
because they concern the manner, location, or conditions of the execution of petitioner's
21
sentence and not the fact of petitioner's conviction or sentence. See Tucker v. Carlson, 925
22
F.2d 330, 331 (9th Cir. 1991) (stating that a challenge to the execution of a sentence is
23
"maintainable only in a petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241"). Venue
24
is proper in this District as Petitioner is challenging the execution of his sentence at Taft
25
Correctional Institution, which is within the Eastern District of California.
26
27
28
1
The Court notes that the subsequent decision to recom m end placem ent in the RCC program m ay cause
the present petition to be m oot. However, as described herein, this Court does not have authority to review such
determ inations and so need not address wether the present claim is m oot.
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
-2-
1
III.
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
2
In Sacora v Thomas, 628 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2010), petition for cert filed, (U.S. May 16,
3
2011) (No. 10-10580), the Ninth Circuit laid out the relevant statutory background applicable
4
in this case:
5
6
7
Two statutory provisions govern the BOP's authority to place inmates in
its custody in RRCs: 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(b) and 3624(c). Section 3621 governs
the authority of the BOP to designate a prisoner's placement in general while he
or she is in the BOP's custody. In the context RRCs, this section governs the
BOP's authority in cases where a prisoner who has more than a year left to
serve of his or her prison sentence requests a transfer to such a facility. [FN 2]
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[FN 2] That governing statute provides:
The Bureau of Prisons shall designate the place of the prisoner's imprisonment.
The Bureau may designate any available penal or correctional facility that meets
minimum standards of health and habitability established by the Bureau . . . that
the Bureau determines to be appropriate and suitable, considering —
(1) the resources of the facility contemplated;
(2) the nature and circumstances of the offense;
(3) the history and characteristics of the prisoner;
(4) any statement by the court that imposed the sentence (A) concerning the purposes for which the sentence to
imprisonment was determined to be warranted; or
(B) recommending a type of penal or correctional facility as
appropriate; and
(5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission
pursuant to section 994(a)(2) of title 28.
.... The Bureau may at any time, having regard for the same matters, direct the
transfer of a prisoner from one penal correctional facility to another . . . .
18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).
Sacora, 628 F.3d at 1061-62.
On April 14, 2008, five days after the [Second Chance Act] went into
effect, BOP officials issued a memorandum (the "April 14 Memorandum")
explaining the changes to the law and setting forth guidance to BOP staff about
how to administer the law. On October 21, 2008 . . . the BOP issued the
regulations required by the statute . . . .
Substantively, the regulations: (1) define the terms "community
confinement" and "home detention"; (2) provide that inmates may be designated
to community confinement as a condition of prerelease custody for a period not
to exceed 12 months and to home detention for a period not to exceed the
shorter often percent of the inmate's term of imprisonment or six months; and
(3) provide that inmates will be considered for community confinement in an
manner consistent with § 3621(b) on an individual basis, with placements of
sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration
into the community.
Sacora, 628 F.3d at 1063 (footnote omitted).
On November 14, 2008, BOP officials issued another memorandum (the
"November 14 Memorandum") [*9] which provides guidance to BOP staff when
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
-3-
considering inmate requests for transfers to RRCs before the final 12 months of
the inmate's sentence. It notes that "[i]nmates are legally eligible to be placed
in an RRC at any time during their prison sentence[s]," and that "[s]taff cannot,
therefore, automatically deny an inmate's request for transfer to a RRC."
Instead, "inmate requests for RRC placement must receive individualized
consideration." The memorandum further notes that "[t]elling an inmate that
he/she is ineligible for RRC placement is the same as automatically denying the
inmate from even being considered for such placement, and is not in accord with
Bureau policy." However, as in the April 14 Memorandum, the November 14
Memorandum advises BOP staff that "a RRC placement beyond six months
should only occur when there are unusual or extraordinary circumstances
justifying such placement, and the Regional Director concurs."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Id. at 1064.
8
IV.
ANALYSIS OF PETITIONER'S CLAIMS
9
A.
Does BOP Policy Violate the Second Chance Act?
10
First, Petitioner appears to challenge the BOP's policy regarding transfers of prisoners
11
to RRCs prior to the final twelve months of a prisoner's sentence. Petitioner contends that
12
Respondent’s interpretation of the Second Chance Act conflicts with the individualized factors
13
set forth under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). For the reasons discussed below, this argument is without
14
merit.
15
In Sacora, the Ninth Circuit specifically analyzed the current BOP policy with respect
16
to inmates requesting a transfer to a RRC prior to their final twelve months of imprisonment.
17
The Court specifically found that the BOP's policy did not violate the Second Chance Act by
18
explaining that:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The . . . policy set forth in the November 14 Memorandum is consistent
with § 3621(b) . . . Petitioners argue, however, that the policy as set forth in the
November 14, Memorandum is contrary to our decision in Rodriguez v. Smith,
541 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2008). We disagree.
In Rodriguez, we held that the prior version of the regulations codified at
28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20 and 570.21 was invalid, because it "categorically exclude[d]
inmates from RRC eligibility without considering the mandatory factors
articulated in § 3621(b)." 541 F.3d at 1187. No such problem exists here.
Although the November 14 Memorandum does set forth a presumption that
RRC placements of longer than six months should occur only "when there are
unusual or extraordinary circumstances justifying such placement[ ] and the
Regional Director concurs," the Memorandum also admonishes BOP staff that
they "cannot . . . automatically deny an inmate's request for transfer to a RRC"
because "[i]nmates are legally eligible to be placed in an RRC at any time during
their prison sentence[s]." The memorandum also reminds the BOP staff that
they "must individually consider the request, just as they would any other request
for lower security transfer." Further, the memorandum reminds the staff that
when they review an inmate's transfer request, they should review the five
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
-4-
3
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) that, we noted in Rodriguez, are
"mandatory." Rodriguez, 541 F.3d at 1187. Accordingly, we conclude that the
BOP's policy as set forth in the November 14 Memorandum does not violate the
SCA.
Sacora, 628 F.3d at 1068. For the reasons outlined in Sacora, Petitioner's challenge to the
4
BOP's current policy is without merit. The policy does not violate the Second Chance Act, and
5
Petitioner’s claim is denied.
1
2
7
The Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Consider Individualized Determinations
Regarding RCC Placement
Petitioner asserts that BOP's denial of his transfer request was arbitrary and capricious
8
under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (A) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). However, this Court
9
lacks jurisdiction to hear Petitioner's claim.
6
B.
10
The APA provides a cause of action for persons suffering a legal wrong because of
11
adverse agency action, and agency actions can be held unlawful when those actions are
12
arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706(2) (A); Reeb v. Thomas,
13
636 F.3d 1224, 1226 (9th Cir. 2011).
14
The Ninth Circuit recently determined that 18 U.S.C. § 3625 precludes judicial review
15
under the APA of certain individualized determinations by the BOP. Reeb, 636 F.3d at 1226-
16
27. In Reeb, the petitioner challenged the BOP's decision to expel him from an intensive drug
17
treatment program for federal inmates know as the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP).
18
As the Reeb court discussed, the BOP has broad statutory discretion over the entire RDAP
19
program under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e), and inmates who successfully complete RDAP are
20
eligible for a up to a one year sentence reduction. Id. at 1225. The petitioner in Reeb
21
contended the BOP lacked a rational basis for expelling him from RDAP under § 706(2)(A) of
22
the APA. Id. at 1227-28.
23
The Reeb court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim, holding that 18
24
U.S.C. § 3625 unambiguously specified that judicial review under the APA was precluded.
25
Section 3625 states that the APA does not apply to decisions relating to imprisonment
26
governed by U.S.C. § 3621. Specifically, the court stated:
27
28
To find that prisoners can bring habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
to challenge the BOP's discretionary determinations made pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3621 would be inconsistent with the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3625.
Accordingly, any substantive decision by the BOP to admit a particular prisoner
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
-5-
1
2
3
into RDAP, or to grant or deny a sentence reduction for completion of the
program, is not reviewable by the district court. The BOP's substantive decisions
to remove particular inmates from the RDAP program are likewise not subject
to judicial review.
Reeb, 636 F.3d at 1227.
4
Reeb is also instructive with regard to determinations to the RCC. Like the RDAP
5
program, the BOP administers under § 3621(e), the BOP in this case has the sole authority
6
to make RRC placement determinations under § 3621(b). And, like the RDAP determination
7
in Reeb, the BOP's decision to deny Petitioner's RRC transfer request in this case is a
8
substantive, discretionary determination by the BOP. Therefore, like the RDAP decisions in
9
Reeb, RRC placement decisions are properly left to the BOP's discretion.
10
Accordingly, the BOP's substantive, discretionary RRC decision adverse to Petitioner
11
is not reviewable in the district court pursuant to § 706(2)(A) of the APA. Reeb, 636 F.3d at
12
1227; see also Binford v. Thomas, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50242 (D. Or. May 10, 2011). Thus,
13
this Court lacks jurisdiction to review an individualized determination regarding Petitioner’s
14
RCC placement. As this Court lacks jurisdiction to review Respondent’s determination,
15
Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief and the claim is denied.
16
V.
ORDER
17
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
18
1) The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED;
19
2) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the case; and
20
3) A certificate of appealability is not required in this case. Forde v. U.S. Parole
21
Comm'n, 114 F.3d 879 (9th Cir.1997).
22
23
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated:
ci4d6
September 10, 2011
Michael J. Seng
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
-6-
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?