Day v. Ives

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/19/11 ORDERING that within 28 days respondent shall file additional exhibits regarding petitioner's appeal history to demonstrate that petitioner actually failed to properly exhaust this c laim. Additionally, respondent shall address and file any exhibits that are necessary which discuss if petitioner did or did not request RDAP prior to 3/16/09. If no exhibits exist to shed light on these claims respondent shall provide a declaration from the prison stating that there are no records that address these issues. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

STEVEN DAY,

11
12
13

Petitioner,

No. CIV S-11-0056 GGH P

vs.
RICHARD B. IVES,

14

Respondent.

15

ORDER
/

16

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of

17

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pending before the court is respondent’s motion to

18

dismiss (MTD), filed on July 14, 2011, to which petitioner filed an opposition on July 25, 2011.

19

Respondent contends that petitioner has not exhausted administrative remedies, this court lacks

20

subject matter jurisdiction and the issue is moot. Petitioner, who is incarcerated at Federal

21

Correctional Institution (FCI) - Herlong, argues that he was wrongfully denied eligibility for a

22

year off his sentence for successfully completing the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Residential Drug

23

Abuse Program (RDAP).1

24
25
26

1

RDAP is an intensive drug treatment program for federal inmates with documented
substance abuse problems. The program utilizes both individual/ group activities and requires at
least 500 hours of treatment over a period of 6 to 12 months. Treatment is conducted in a unit set
1

1

Petition

2

On December 9, 2008, petitioner was sentenced to a 60 month term of

3

imprisonment for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. On June 1,

4

2009, petitioner submitted a request to participate in RDAP. MTD, Exh. 4. On December 16,

5

2009, BOP officials evaluated petitioner for RDAP and indicated that he would not be eligible

6

for early release with RDAP due to the use of a firearm in his underlying conviction. MTD, Exh.

7

6. Nevertheless, petitioner still participated in RDAP. Somewhat confusingly, petitioner

8

purportedly completed RDAP on October 15, 2010, (Doc. 8 at 3; MTD, Exh. 5), but then

9

withdrew from and failed RDAP on January 31, 2011, (MTD, Exhs. 5, 7). Petitioner filed the

10

instant petition on December 21, 2010.

11

Mootness

12

Respondent argues that this case is moot as petitioner voluntarily withdrew from

13

the RDAP program on January 31, 2011. While this is accurate, BOP records also indicate that

14

petitioner successfully completed RDAP on October 15, 2010. Respondent does not address

15

how petitioner could successfully complete the program and then later withdraw. Perhaps

16

petitioner started a second round or a second program, but without any explanation the

17

undersigned cannot address this claim

18

Exhaustion

19

Respondent’s exhaustion argument is that petitioner filed a grievance with the

20

warden (MTD: Exh. 2), which was denied, but failed to appeal to the next level, the BOP

21

Regional Director. Though, respondent does not include any exhibits to support this assertion or

22

any exhibits showing petitioner’s appeal history.

23

Petitioner states he submitted an appeal to the Regional Director but received no

24
25
26

apart from the general prison population and is followed by institutional and/or community-based
transitional programs. Successful completion of RDAP can result in up to a one-year reduction
in a prisoner's sentence. Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1225 (9th Cir. 2011)
2

1

response. Though petitioner includes no exhibits to support his contention.

2

Jurisdiction

3

As petitioner’s underlying offense involved a firearm, a threshold question for a

4

RDAP issue is if the petitioner requested to participate in RDAP prior to March 16, 2009. On

5

March 16, 2009, the BOP implemented new regulations, 28 C.F.R. 550.55, which provides that

6

inmates whose current offense involved the carrying, possession or use of a firearm or other

7

dangerous weapon or explosive were not eligible for RDAP early release.2

8

In the instant case, respondent argues that June 1, 2009, was the first time

9

petitioner requested RDAP and when it was later approved it was specifically noted that

10

petitioner would not be eligible for early release due to the new regulations. Petitioner does not

11

offer a specific day when he first requested RDAP but argues that “it is a reasonable inference

12

that petitioner submitted his request for RDAP prior to 3/16/09”. Opposition at 5. Petitioner

13

bases this contention on a response to an inmate appeal, where the BOP conceded that it did not

14

know the exact date of petitioner’s earlier RDAP request, stating:

15

[Petitioner] requested to participate in RDAP via Request to staff (cop out). Staff
responded to his request on the form and returned it to him. He was screened by
DTS in June 2009, no showed more than one appointment for his diagnostic
interview, and then requested to delay being placed on the waiting list due to unit
team related concerns. When asked, [petitioner] said he did not retain a copy of
his cop out. A copy is not included in his RDAP file, since it was returned to him.
Without the cop out to establish the date [petitioner] first applied to RDAP, we
may have insufficient documentation to establish that he applied to RDAP under
the program statements in effect prior to March 16, 2009.

16
17
18
19
20

Opposition, Exh. A.

21
22

It seems even prison officials were not sure how to proceed or when petitioner
first requested RDAP.

23

Within twenty-eight days respondent shall file additional exhibits regarding

24
2

25
26

This applied to institutions in the 9th Circuit in light of Arrington v. Daniels, 516 F.3d
1106 (9th Cir. 2008), that invalidated prior regulations that did not articulate a rationale for
categorically excluding from early release those inmates convicted of nonviolent offenses
involving firearms.
3

1

petitioner’s appeal history to demonstrate that petitioner actually failed to properly exhaust this

2

claim. Additionally, respondent shall address and file any exhibits that are necessary which

3

discuss if petitioner did or did not request RDAP prior to March 16, 2009. If no exhibits exist to

4

shed light on either the exhaustion or jurisdiction claims respondent shall provide a declaration

5

from the prison stating that there are no records that address these issues.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-eight days

7

respondent shall file additional exhibits regarding petitioner’s appeal history to demonstrate that

8

petitioner actually failed to properly exhaust this claim. Additionally, respondent shall address

9

and file any exhibits that are necessary which discuss if petitioner did or did not request RDAP

10

prior to March 16, 2009. If no exhibits exist to shed light on these claims respondent shall

11

provide a declaration from the prison stating that there are no records that address these issues.

12

DATED: September 19, 2011

13

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15

GGH: AB
day0056.ord2

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4