PEEK v. JULIAN et al
Filing
23
Entry Granting Motion to Dismiss and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - The petitioner brought this action pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 702, against S. Julian of the Bureau of Prisons seeking a reduction in his sentence based on his completion of a program. He originally filed this action in the Eastern District of Michigan and filed an identical action in the Southern District of Indiana. Case No. 2:17-cv-183-LJM- MJD. Finding that the p etitioner is not entitled to that relief, this Court dismissed that action. Then, the action in the Eastern District of Michigan was transferred to this Court and the respondent filed a motion to dismiss, dkt. 18 . The petitioner responded to the motion to dismiss by filing a motion for summary judgment, dkt. 21 , and the defendant responded in opposition to the plaintiff's motion, dkt. 22 . The petitioner has failed to state a viable claim for relief under the APA, the defendant's motion to dismiss, dkt. 18 , is granted and this action must be dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall issue now. (See Entry.) Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/27/2017.(RSF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
WILLIAM PEEK,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
No. 2:17-cv-00341-JMS-MJD
)
S. JULIAN Warden,
)
BUREAU OF PRISONS,
)
)
Respondents.
)
Entry Granting Motion to Dismiss and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
The petitioner brought this action pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”),
5 U.S.C. § 702, against S. Julian of the Bureau of Prisons seeking a reduction in his sentence based
on his completion of a program. He originally filed this action in the Eastern District of Michigan
and filed an identical action in the Southern District of Indiana. Case No. 2:17-cv-183-LJM-MJD.
Finding that the petitioner is not entitled to that relief, this Court dismissed that action. Then, the
action in the Eastern District of Michigan was transferred to this Court and the respondent filed a
motion to dismiss, dkt. [18]. The petitioner responded to the motion to dismiss by filing a motion
for summary judgment, dkt. [21], and the defendant responded in opposition to the plaintiff’s
motion, dkt. [22].
I.
The Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment
In his motion for summary judgment, the petitioner argues that the government should be
bound by the position it took in this case before the case was transferred to this Court. Although
that position was favorable to the petitioner, it was based upon case law that was later overturned
by the United States Supreme Court in Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230 (2001). The petitioner had
notice of the existence of Lopez from at least the date of this Court’s dismissal of Case No. 2:17-
cv-183-LJM-MJD on May 2, 2017, before the government filed its response to this petition in the
Eastern District of Michigan. He therefore cannot succeed in making an equitable claim to hold
the government to a position that he knew was in conflict with binding precedent. Even if that was
not the case, it would be legal error for the Court to rely on case law that has been overturned by
later Supreme Court precedent. For these reason, the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment,
dkt. [21], is denied.
II.
The Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
In his petition, the petitioner alleges that he completed the Residential Drug Abuse Program
(“RDAP”) at Terre Haute. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 3621(e)(2), “The period a prisoner convicted
of a nonviolent offense remains in custody after successfully completing a treatment program may
be reduced by the Bureau of Prisons, but such reduction may not be more than one year from the
term the prisoner must otherwise serve.” The petitioner asserts that, although he successfully
completed the RDAP, he was denied a sentence reduction under § 3621. Specifically, the Bureau
of Prisons cited, among other things, 28 C.F.R. § 550.5(b)(5)(ii) as a basis for denying the
reduction, which is a regulation that prevents inmates from receiving a sentence reduction if they
are serving a sentence for a felony that involved possession of a firearm.
The plaintiff brings two challenges to the denial of his sentence reduction. First, he argues
that there was no evidence proffered by the government during his underlying criminal case that
he possessed a gun in the course of his drug offense. Second, he contends that the Bureau of
Prisons lacked authority to exclude an entire category of prisoners via 28 C.F.R § 550.5(b) from
eligibility for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C § 3621(e)(2). The petitioner maintains that,
pursuant to the APA, the Court should set aside the Bureau of Prisons’s decision and order a
reduction in his sentence.
These exact arguments have been foreclosed by the Seventh Circuit and Supreme Court,
respectively. First, the Seventh Circuit has rejected a similar challenge by a prisoner who argued
that he did not possess a firearm during the commission of his underlying conviction. See Lopez
v. Rios, 553 Fed. Appx. 610, 610 (7th Cir. 2014). Although in that case the prisoner bought his
claim via a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, the Seventh Circuit noted that he would not have
been successful even if his claim was brought under the APA because “[a]n APA action contesting
a discretionary denial of early release after successful completion of drug treatment . . . is
categorically barred by [18 U.SC.] § 3625.” Id. (collecting cases).
In that same case, the Seventh Circuit also rejected the second argument the petitioner
raises here. Specifically, the Seventh Circuit noted that “a challenge to the BOP’s general policy
also hits a dead end since the Supreme Court has held that excluding from early release those
prisoners who were involved with firearms is a reasonable, permissible administrative policy.” Id.
(citing Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 244 (2001)).
Because district courts are not permitted to “convert” APA suits into habeas corpus actions,
or vice versa, see Richmond v. Scibana, 387 F.3d 602, 606 (7th Cir. 2004), the Court has assessed
the petitioner’s claims only for whether they state a viable APA claim, as this is expressly the
vehicle through which the petitioner’s claims are raised. Thus, the Court takes no view on whether
the petitioner has viable challenges to the denial of sentencing reduction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241. See Lopez, 553 Fed. Appx. at 611 (noting the types of challenges that can be raised in §
2241 habeas petitions).
For these reasons, the petitioner has failed to state a viable claim for relief under the APA,
the defendant’s motion to dismiss, dkt. [18], is granted and this action must be dismissed.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall issue now.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 12/27/2017
Distribution:
WILLIAM PEEK
50001-039
TERRE HAUTE - USP
TERRE HAUTE U.S. PENITENTIARY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. BOX 33
TERRE HAUTE, IN 47808
Jill Z. Julian
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (Indianapolis)
jill.julian@usdoj.gov
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?