Guidry v. Stewart et al
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 6/3/2013. (c/m 6/3/2013)(ko, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
TRENT A. GUIDRY
Petitioner
v
WARDEN TIMOTHY S. STEWART, et al.
Respondents
*
*
*
Civil Action No. RDB-13-634
*
*
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending is Respondents’ Response to Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 6. Petitioner has
filed a Reply opposing the dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §2241. ECF No. 8. In addition, Petitioner filed a Motion for Amendment. ECF No.
9. No hearing is necessary for the resolution of this case. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011).
For the reasons that follow, the Petition shall be dismissed.
Petitioner Trent Guidry (“Guidry”) is a prisoner in federal custody at FCI Cumberland,
Maryland. In his self-represented Petition he asserts that he is being improperly denied an
appropriate assignment to a Halfway House as required by the Second-Chance Act. ECF No. 1
at p. 1. Specifically, he claims he is not being provided a full year’s stay in the program which
he needs in order to integrate into the community of Billings, Montana. Guidry claims he is
entitled to one full year of placement in the program under the Second Chance Act. Id.
In his Motion for Amendment, Guidry alleges Respondent should have attached relevant
documents from his criminal case and alleges that the declaration from Lori Vance concerning
her interaction with Guidry and describing him as angry is false. ECF No. 9. The Motion will
be denied as the matters raised therein are not dispositive of the issue before this Court.
Respondents assert that Guidry’s claims must be dismissed because judicial review of his
assignment to a Residential Reentry Center (RRC) is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. §3625.
Respondents further state that Guidry is not entitled to a full year of assignment to an RRC
because the statute does not set a mandatory minimum length of stay; rather, it provides that no
prisoner may be assigned to an RRC for more than one year. Additionally, Respondents claim
that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) properly exercised its discretion when it determined the length
of Guidry’s assignment to an RRC facility, considering all factors mandated by 18 U.S.C.
§§3624(c)(6)(A) and 3621(b). ECF No. 6.
In his Response in Opposition, Petitioner asserts that BOP staff are interfering with his
ability to benefit from the Second Chance Act and that his administrative grievances are not
being properly addressed. He claims requiring him to exhaust grievances regarding his
placement would prejudice him irreparably since his projected release date is April 19, 2014, less
than a year from now. He further argues that his claim is not moot because he has not yet been
placed in an RRC. ECF No. 8.
The provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act which permit judicial review of
discretionary decisions do not apply to “any determination, decision, or order” made under the
subchapter of the United States Code related to imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. §3625. This Court
does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a challenge to a BOP determination of a prisoner’s
assignment to an RRC facility. See Eaton v. United States, 178 F. 3d 902, 903 (7th Cir. 1999)
(decision to transfer to halfway house not reviewable).
In addition, prisoners have no
constitutional right to participate in programs, demand to be housed in one prison verses another;
or to be assigned any particular security classification. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238,
245 (1983).
Even if the decision were reviewable, it is clear Guidry is not entitled to the relief he
seeks. Under 18 U.S.C. §3624(c)(1),
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent practicable, ensure
that a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment spends a portion of the final
2
months of that term (not to exceed 12 months), under conditions that will
afford that prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the
reentry of that prisoner into the community.
(emphasis supplied). Guidry’s position that he is entitled to a full twelve-month assignment to
an RRC facility is unsupported by the law. Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
shall be dismissed and a Certificate of Appealability1 shall be denied, by separate Order which
follows.
June 3, 2013
Date
___________/s/______________________
RICHARD D. BENNETT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
A Certificate of Appealability may issue Aonly if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.@ 28 U. S.C. ' 2253(c)(2). Because this Court finds that there has been no substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability shall be denied.
3
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?