Lopez v. Benov

Filing 13

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/13/15: Thirty-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

Case No. 1:13-cv-01207 MJS (HC)
CECILIO CORTEZ LOPEZ,

12

FINDINGS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
Petitioner,
HABEAS CORPUS

v.

13
14
15

MICHAEL L. BENOV,
Respondent.

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

I.

INTRODUCTION
Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is confined at Taft Correctional
Institution ("TCI") in Taft, California.
The instant petition was filed on August 2, 2013. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) Petitioner
alleges he was denied forty eight (48) days of good conduct time he earned by
participating in educational programming between April 28, 2007 and April 27, 2011. (Id.
at 3, 8.) Petitioner presents two arguments: (1) that as a sentenced deportable alien, he
was not required to meet the education requirement to be eligible for additional good
conduct time; and (2) that the employees of TCI are not authorized to reduce Petitioner's
good conduct time because they are not Bureau of Prisons employees. (Id. at 4-6.)

1

1

Respondent filed an answer to the petition on November 1, 2013. (Answer, ECF No. 12.)

2

Petitioner filed no traverse. This matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge

3

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304. It stands ready for

4

adjudication.

5

II.

JURISDICTION

6

A.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

7

Relief by way of a writ of habeas corpus extends to a prisoner in custody under

8

the authority of the United States who shows that the custody violates the Constitution,

9

laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Although a federal prisoner

10

who challenges the validity or constitutionality of his conviction must file a petition for writ

11

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal prisoner challenging the manner,

12

location, or conditions of the execution of a sentence must bring a petition for writ of

13

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-65

14

(9th Cir. 2000).

15

Petitioner alleges that his good conduct time has been improperly calculated.

16

(Pet. at 3.) If a constitutional violation has resulted in losing time credits, it affects the

17

duration of a sentence, and the violation may be remedied by way of a petition for writ of

18

habeas corpus. Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874, 876-78 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court has

19

subject matter jurisdiction over the petition.

20

B.

Jurisdiction over the Person

21

28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) provides that writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the

22

district courts "within their respective jurisdictions." A writ of habeas corpus operates not

23

upon the prisoner, but upon the prisoner's custodian. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit

24

Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 494-495, 93 S. Ct. 1123, 35 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1973). A

25

petitioner filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 must file the petition in

26

the judicial district of the Petitioner's custodian. Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672,

27

677 (9th Cir. 1990). The warden of the penitentiary where a prisoner is confined

28

constitutes the custodian who must be named in the petition, and the petition must be
2

1

filed in the district of confinement. Id.; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 446-47, 124 S.

2

Ct. 2711, 159 L. Ed. 2d 513 (2004). It is sufficient if the custodian is in the territorial

3

jurisdiction of the court when the petition is filed; transfer of the petitioner thereafter does

4

not defeat personal jurisdiction that has once been properly established. Francis v.

5

Rison, 894 F.2d 353, 354 (9th Cir. 1990).

6

At all pertinent times Petitioner was incarcerated at TCI. TCI is within the Eastern

7

District of California. Petitioner named Michael L. Benov, the Warden of TCI, as

8

Respondent. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the custodian.

9

III.

ANALYSIS OF CLAIM

10

A.

Factual Background

11

While incarcerated, Petitioner participated in a literacy program to help him

12

progress towards obtaining a General Educational Development ("GED") certificate.

13

Petitioner first enrolled in the literacy program on March 5, 2007. (Decl. of Dale Patrick,

14

Ex. D, ECF No. 12-2.) On November 27, 2007, his GED status was changed to

15

unsatisfactory due to poor progress. (Id., Exs. D, G.) Petitioner then voluntarily withdrew

16

from the program after completing 182 instructional hours. (Id.)

17

He thereafter repeated this enrollment and withdrawal cycle: He re-enrolled on

18

January 14, 2008, and withdrew on March 21, 2008, after completing 94 instructional

19

hours; on April 10, 2008, he re-enrolled, but he withdrew after completing only 26

20

instructional hours; and he re-enrolled on July 15, 2010, and completed 240 instructional

21

hours when, on September 23, 2011, his status was changed from unsatisfactory to

22

satisfactory. (Id.)

23

On October 9, 2003, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (formerly

24

Immigration and Naturalization Service) lodged a detainer against Petitioner for possible

25

deportation. (Decl. of Dale Patrick, Ex. D) However, prison records indicate that

26

Petitioner has not yet received a final order of deportation, exclusion or removal. (Id.)

27

Finding that Petitioner's progress towards his GED had been unsatisfactory from

28

November 27, 2007 to September 23, 2011, Respondent provided Petitioner good
3

1

conduct time at a rate of 42 days per year rather than 54 days per year which would

2

have been awarded if he had been satisfactorily enrolled during that period. (Id.)

3

Petitioner challenges that determination.

4

B.

Discussion

5

18 U.S.C. § 3624(f) directs the BOP to create a "functional literacy" program "for

6

all mentally capable inmates who are not functionally literate." Each eligible inmate must

7

participate in the program for a mandatory period to be determined by the BOP, and the

8

BOP must offer "appropriate incentives which lead to successful completion of the

9

programs." 18 U.S.C. § 3624(f). Under these statutory mandates, the BOP requires any

10

inmate without a high school diploma or GED to attend instructional courses until he

11

completes 240 hours of attendance or obtains a GED, whichever occurs first. 28 C.F.R.

12

§ 544.70. Once the inmate has reached 240 hours, the BOP offers additional incentives

13

to encourage completion of the course under 28 C.F.R. § 523.20(c)(1), which awards 54

14

days of good conduct time credit if the inmate "has earned or is making satisfactory

15

progress toward earning a GED credential." See also 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1) (providing

16

that "[i]n awarding credit under this section, the Bureau shall consider whether the

17

prisoner, during the relevant period, has earned, or is making satisfactory progress

18

toward earning, a high school diploma or an equivalent degree."). If the inmate chooses

19

not to pursue a GED beyond the mandatory 240 hours, 28 C.F.R. § 523.20(c)(2)

20

provides that the BOP shall award only 42 days good conduct time credit.

21

Inmates who fit within one of the exceptions in 28 C.F.R. § 544.71 are excused

22

from mandatory participation in the literacy program. Exceptions exist for sentenced

23

deportable aliens, and those who are temporarily or permanently unable to participate

24

due to documented mental, emotional, or physical impairments which limit their ability to

25

benefit from the program. 28 C.F.R. § 544.71.

26

Respondent determined that Petitioner was not entitled to 54 days of good

27

conduct time per year for the period between November 27, 2007 and September 23,

28

2011 because Petitioner did not complete 240 hours of continuous education during that
4

1

period, and therefore was not making satisfactory progress towards a GED. Records

2

provided by Respondent indicate that on November 27, 2007, Petitioner was making

3

unsatisfactory progress and withdrew from classes. (Patrick Decl., Exs. D, G.) March 21,

4

2008 records indicate that Petitioner was not attending class and had poor progress.

5

(Id.) Petitioner again withdrew from classes on May 19, 2008. (Id.) After re-enrolling and

6

completing 240 instructional hours, Petitioner's GED status was changed to satisfactory

7

on September 23, 2011, and his credit earning status was changed to 54 days a year.

8

(Id.)

9

Petitioner does not challenge the accuracy of Respondent's good conduct time

10

calculations. Instead, he asserts that he was exempt from participation in the literacy

11

program because he was a sentenced deportable alien and that the employees of TCI

12

were not Bureau "staff" and did not have authority to withhold good credit time.

13

1.

Sentenced Deportable Alien

14

Petitioner is not exempt from class enrollment requirements as a deportable alien.

15

A prisoner must be subject to a final order of removal by the Immigration and Customs

16

Enforcement Agency to be a deportable alien under for the Bureau's regulations. See 28

17

C.F.R. § 523.20(d).

18

On October 9, 2003, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement lodged a

19

detainer against Petitioner for possible deportation. (Patrick Decl., Ex. D.) According to

20

the records provided, Petitioner has not received a final order of deportation. (Id.) As 28

21

C.F.R. § 523.20(d) provides an exception only to aliens "who [are] subject to a final order

22

of removal, deportation, or exclusion" and Petitioner has not received a final order of

23

removal, § 523.20(d) does not apply and he is still subject to the mandated literacy

24

program requirement. De La Cruz v. Zickefoose, 450 Fed. Appx. 123, 126 (3d Cir. 2011);

25

see also Reyes-Morales v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 766 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 1357 (S.D.

26

Ga. 2010); Argueta-Anariba v. Recktenwald, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156152 (S.D.N.Y.

27

Nov. 4, 2014).

28

2.

Authority of Non-Bureau Staff to Calculate Credits
5

1

Petitioner also asserts that employees of TCI, a private correctional institution, are

2

not Bureau of Prisons staff, and not authorized to reduce Petitioner's good conduct time.

3

Petitioner refers to 28 C.F.R. § 500.1(b) that defines "staff" as "any employee of the

4

Bureau of Prisons or Federal Prison Industries, Inc." It is an open question in this District

5

whether TCI staff have authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings against prisoners

6

resulting in the loss of good conduct time. See, e.g., Arellano v. Benov, 2014 U.S. Dist.

7

LEXIS 41736 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2014).

8

With regard to disciplinary proceedings, the relevant federal regulations require

9

Bureau employees to conduct proceedings. The Courts were then called upon to engage

10

in statutory and regulatory construction to determine if it was reasonable for the Bureau

11

of Prisons to allow non-Bureau staff to discipline prisoners. In Arellano, the Court found

12

that "The regulations require the BOP to provide inmates with disciplinary hearings

13

before a [disciplinary hearing officer] employed by the BOP. The BOP is bound by the

14

regulations it imposes on itself and was not authorized to allow staff of a privately run

15

prison to discipline Petitioner." Arellano, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41736 at 45-46.

16

While the regulations regarding prison discipline explicitly require Bureau staff to

17

conduct disciplinary hearings, the regulations regarding satisfactory participation in the

18

literacy program for additional good credit time do not. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 523.20; 544.70-

19

544.75. The only relevant regulation requiring the involvement of Bureau staff with

20

regard to the literacy program applies when disciplinary action is taken for failure to

21

participate. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 544.75 ("As with other mandatory programs, such as work

22

assignments, staff may take disciplinary action against an inmate lacking a GED

23

credential or high school diploma if that inmate refuses to enroll in, and to complete, the

24

mandatory 240 instructional hours of the literacy program."). However, the reduction of

25

credit earning capacity from 54 days to 42 days per year has not been considered a

26

disciplinary action. See Martin v. O'Brien, 207 Fed. Appx. 587, 588 (6th Cir. 2006);

27

Livengood v. Bureau of Prisons, 503 Fed. Appx. 104, 107 (3d Cir. 2012) ("The reduction

28

in his good conduct time earning rate was not a sanction imposed pursuant to a
6

1

misconduct adjudication.").

2

Regarding interpretation of federal regulations, the agency's interpretation of

3

ambiguous regulations is provided deference. Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,

4

132 S. Ct. 2156, 2166, 183 L. Ed. 2d 153 (2012). "It is well established that an agency's

5

interpretation need not be the only possible reading of a regulation—or even the best

6

one—to prevail." Decker v. Northwest Envtl. Def. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 1326, 1337, 185 L. Ed.

7

2d 447 (2013). Under Auer v. Robbins and Seminole Rock, a court will defer to an

8

agency's interpretation of its regulations, "even in a legal brief, unless the interpretation

9

is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations or there is any other reason to

10

suspect that the interpretation does not reflect the agency's fair and considered

11

judgment on the matter in question." Talk Am., Inc. v. Mich. Bell Tel. Co., 131 S. Ct.

12

2254, 2260-2261, 180 L. Ed. 2d 96 (2011) (citation omitted); Chase Bank USA, N. A. v.

13

McCoy, 562 U.S. 195, 131 S. Ct. 871, 881, 178 L. Ed. 2d 716 (2011); Auer v. Robbins,

14

519 U.S. 452, 461, 117 S. Ct. 905, 137 L. Ed. 2d 79 (1997); Bowles v. Seminole Rock &

15

Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 411, 65 S. Ct. 1215, 89 L. Ed. 1700 (1945); Indep. Training &

16

Apprenticeship Program v. Cal. Dep't of Indus. Rels., 730 F.3d 1024, 2013 U.S. App.

17

LEXIS 19255 (9th Cir. 2013).

18

Respondent's interpretation of the regulations is entitled to Auer deference. The

19

regulations do not state that Bureau staff must be involved in making a determination

20

whether an inmate's progress in the literacy program is satisfactory. The regulation is

21

silent regarding who can determine whether an inmate is entitled to either 54 or 42 days

22

of good conduct time for continued enrolment in the literacy program. As the Bureau's

23

interpretation is neither plainly erroneous nor inconsistent, it is entitled to deference.

24

Petitioner's claim that TCI employees are not authorized to determine his good credit

25

time eligibility based on his satisfactory enrollment in the literacy program is without

26

merit.

27

IV.

28

RECOMMENDATION
It is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be
7

1

DENIED.

2

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the assigned United

3

States District Court Judge, under 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the

4

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.

5

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written

6

objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to

7

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. The Court will then review the

8

Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised

9

that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on

10

appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, __ F.3d __, __, No. 11-17911, 2014 WL 6435497, at *3

11

(9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 13, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8