Popperwill v. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 12

PRISCS-RULING Denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Judge Dominic J. Squatrito on 4/4/2012. (Payton, R.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

STEPHANIE POPPERWILL,
Petitioner,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
MAUREEN BAIRD, et al.,
Respondents.

PRISONER
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-1071(DJS)

RULING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner Stephanie Popperwill, an inmate confined at the
Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut ("FCI
Danbury"), brings this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
challenging the denial of early release for completion of the
residential drug abuse treatment program.

The respondents argue

that the petitioner is not entitled to early release.

For the

reasons that follow, the petition is denied.
I.

Background
In April 2006, the petitioner entered a guilty plea in the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
on a charge of conspiracy to distribute and possession with
intent to distribute methamphetamine.

She received a two-point

sentence enhancement for a crime involving the carrying, use or
possession of a firearm.

The petitioner is serving a term of

imprisonment of 117 months.
While incarcerated at FCI Danbury, the petitioner sought
participation in the Residential Drug Abuse Program (“RDAP”).

Inmates who complete the RDAP may be eligible for early release.
In October 2010, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) determined that
the petitioner was not eligible for early release upon completion
of the RDAP because she received a two-point sentence enhancement
for a crime involving the carrying, use or possession of a
firearm.

BOP officials were not persuaded by the petitioner’s

argument that she did not carry, possess or use the firearm.
II.

Discussion
The petitioner challenges a correctional decision regarding

a prison program.

Thus, she properly brings her petition

pursuant to section 2241.

See Carmona v. United States Bureau of

Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir. 2001).
The petitioner argues that she was improperly denied a oneyear sentence reduction for completion of the RDAP.

The

respondents argue that the petition should be dismissed or
denied.

Although the respondents informed the petitioner of the

requirements of a proper reply to their response to the petition,
the petitioner has neither filed a memorandum nor sought
additional time within which to do so.
Habeas relief is warranted when a prisoner is held in
custody in violation of the United States Constitution or federal
laws or treaties.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).

The petitioner

has identified no constitutionally protected or federally
mandated right to early release.

The federal statute creating

2

the RDAP provides that early release is discretionary.

See 18

U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) (providing that term of imprisonment of
inmate convicted of nonviolent offense “may be reduced” by period
of up to one year after successful completion of RDAP).

Thus,

completion of the RDAP does not automatically entitle the
petitioner to early release.

See Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230,

241 (2001) (upon completion of the RDAP, the BOP “has the
authority, but not the duty,” to authorize a reduction in the
inmate’s term of imprisonment).
Under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), a reviewing court must hold
unlawful and set aside any agency action found to be arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law.

This review, however, is narrow in scope.

The court should not substitute its judgment for that of the
agency.

Rather, the court should uphold agency action if the

agency has examined the relevant data and has either set forth a
satisfactory explanation including a rational connection between
the facts found and the choice made or such connection may
reasonably be discerned.

See Karpova v. Snow, 497 F.3d 262, 267-

68 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc.
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)).
The early release qualifications for the RDAP are set forth
in 28 C.F.R. § 550.55 (“the 2009 Rule”) and BOP Program
Statements 5331.02, Early Release Procedures Under 18 U.S.C. §

3

3621(e), and 5162.05, Categorization of Offenses.
www.bop.gov/DataSource/execute/dsPolicyLoc.

See

To be eligible for

early release, an inmate must not have a current felony
conviction for an offense involving the carrying, use or
possession of a firearm.

28 C.F.R. § 550.55(b)(5)(ii); see also

Program Statement 5331.02 §§ 4, 5.
The petitioner states that earlier versions of the rule were
struck down by the courts on various grounds and assumes that the
current rule also is invalid.

She ignores the fact that the

Supreme Court has approved the BOP’s interpretation of the
regulation and Program Statements.

In Lopez v. Davis, the

Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of 28 C.F.R. § 550.55
and the BOP’s practice of categorically excluding inmates from
eligibility for early release based on their preconviction
conduct.

531 U.S. at 244.

Further, although the Supreme Court

did not address one challenge to a prior rule, i.e., that the
rule had not been promulgated in compliance with the notice and
comment provisions of the APA, the BOP has since addressed that
concern.
The BOP denied early release to the petitioner under the
categorical exclusion; her sentence enhancement for carrying, use
or possession of a firearm rendered her ineligible for early
release consideration.
Merk, ¶¶ 18-20.

See Resp’ts’ Mem. Ex. 2, Decl. of Irena

The petitioner has failed to show that the

4

denial of early release for completion of the RDAP was an abuse
of discretion.

Accordingly, her petition must be denied.

III. Conclusion
The petition for writ of habeas corpus [Doc. #1] is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case.
The court concludes that the petitioner has not shown that
she was denied a constitutionally or federally protected right.
Thus, any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith
and a certificate of appealability will not issue.
SO ORDERED this 4th day of April, 2012 at Hartford,
Connecticut.

____/s/ DJS________________________________________
Dominic J. Squatrito
United States District Judge

5