TROY v. ORTIZ

Filing 8

OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 5/21/2018. (dmr)

Case 1:18-cv-00798-RMB Document 8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 155

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
____________________________________
LEWIS TROY,

:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
DAVID E. ORTIZ,
:
:
Respondent.
:
___________________________________:
Petitioner,1

an

inmate

Civ. No. 18-798(RMB)

OPINION

incarcerated

in

the

Federal

Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey (“FCI Fort Dix”),
filed a Petition For a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. §
2241,

challenging

the

Bureau

of

Prison’s

(“BOP”)

decision

concerning his placement in a residential reentry center (“RRC”).
(Pet., ECF No. 1.) On March 19, 2018, Respondent filed an answer
opposing habeas relief. (Answer, ECF No. 4.) Petitioner filed a
reply on April 27, 2018. (Reply, ECF No. 6.) On May 7, 2018,
Petitioner filed a motion to expedite. (Mot. to Expedite, ECF No.
7.) The Court grants Petitioner’s motion to expedite. For the
reasons discussed below, the Court denies the petition.

1

Respondent notes that Petitioner used the name “Lewis
the caption of the instant petition, but BOP records show
is Troy Deon Lewis, and his criminal case in the Western
of Michigan as captioned United States v. Troy Deon Lewis.
ECF No. 4 at 1.)

Troy” in
his name
District
(Answer,

Case 1:18-cv-00798-RMB Document 8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 19 PageID: 156

I.

BACKGROUND
On April 23, 2010, upon his conviction of conspiracy to

distribute

cocaine

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§

846

&

841,

Petitioner was sentenced by the United States District Court for
the

Western

District

of

Michigan

to

a

144

month

term

of

imprisonment, and five years of supervised release. United States
v. Lewis, No. 09cr88 (W.D. Mich. April 23, 2010) (Docket No. 130.)2
The court subsequently granted a motion to reduce the sentence to
120 months. Id. (Docket No. 159.) On April 11, 2013, Petitioner
was sentenced to a three month consecutive term of imprisonment
for possession of a prohibited object (a cell phone). United States
v. Lewis, 13 cr24 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 23, 2010) (Docket No. 13.)3
Petitioner’s

projected

release

date

is

January

9,

2019.

(Declaration of Tara Moran (“Moran Decl.”) ECF No. 4-2, Exh. 1.)
Petitioner’s unit team reviewed his RRC placement status in
August 2017. (Declaration of Vannapha Macavoy (“Macavoy Decl.”)
ECF No. 4-1, ¶4.) After considering the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3621(b), the unit team determined that Petitioner was not
an appropriate candidate for home confinement, and recommended an
RRC placement of 241 to 270 days. (Id., and Attachment 5.) The
unit team explained its decision:
The BOP has bed space availability within the
RRCs near the jurisdiction of supervised
2
3

Available at www.pacer.gov
Also available at www.pacer.gov
2

Case 1:18-cv-00798-RMB Document 8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 3 of 19 PageID: 157

release. Inmate Lewis arrived at FCI Fort Dix,
New Jersey, on April 25, 2017, as a Greater
Security transfer. He is currently serving a
123-month aggregate sentence for Conspiracy to
Distribute 50 Grams or More of Cocaine Base
and Possession of a Prohibited Object (Cell
Phone).
Inmate Lewis has been in custody since January
31, 2007. A review of classification materials
reveals inmate Lewis has an extensive criminal
history. Since entering custody of the BOP,
inmate Lewis has participated in over 16 selfimprovement programs. At the time of initial
sentencing, the court ordered inmate Lewis to
pay a $100.00 Felony Assessment, then, later
[assed] another $25.00 Felony Assessment due
to
a
subsequent
federal
conviction.
Accordingly, inmate Lewis paid off his
obligation to the court by participating in
the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program.
Despite his appropriate level of program
participation, inmate Lewis has an extensive
disciplinary history to include sanctions for
three moderate level violations and one of the
greatest severity.
Inmate Lewis’ sentence is not subject to any
pertinent policy relating to community-based
transitional
programming.
The
sentencing
court has not made a recommendation in regard
to RRC placement. To date, inmate Lewis has
not
completed
the
Residential
or
Nonresidential Drug Abuse Treatment Program.
His Inmate Skills Development Plan has been
reviewed; both Health Services and the
Psychology department recommend inmate Lewis
be referred for RRC placement.
Inmate Lewis had $786.27 deposited in his
inmate Trust Fund Account over the last six
months with a current balance of $15.00;
however, he owes over $30,000 in back-due
child support. Based on his lack of vocational
skills, criminal history, and length of
incarceration, the Unit Team has determined
inmate Lewis demonstrates extraordinary and
3

Case 1:18-cv-00798-RMB Document 8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 4 of 19 PageID: 158

compelling needs requiring extended access to
transitional services. As a result, the Unit
Team is recommending a RRC placement of 241270 days.

(Macavoy Decl. ¶4 & Attachment 5.) The warden of FCI Ft. Dix
concurred with this recommendation, and sent the appropriate form
to

the

residential

reentry

manager

in

Cincinnati,

Ohio,

the

district where Petitioner would be released to an RRC. (Macavoy
Decl. ¶5 & Attachment 6.)
Pursuant to BOP Program Statement 7310.04, the appropriate
residential reentry manager must establish the RRC placement date,
taking

into

consideration

the

recommendation

of

the

inmate’s

institution as well as budgetary concerns and bed space. (Macavoy
Decl. ¶6 & Attachment 7.) The residential reentry manager generally
adheres

to

the

placement

date

recommended

by

the

inmate’s

institution, but is permitted to depart if necessary due to budget
or bed-space constraints. (Id., Attachment 7 at 8.) The residential
reentry manager provided Petitioner with a RRC placement date of
November 9, 2018, due to lack of bed space in the district.
(Macavoy Decl. ¶7 & Attachment 8.)
Petitioner submitted a grievance to the warden of FCI Ft. Dix
on November 15, 2017, complaining that an RRC placement of sixty
days

“is

not

a

fair

amount

of

time”

and

requesting

a

“recalculation” under the Second Chance Act of his eligibility for
home confinement. (Moran Decl., ECF. No. 4-2, ¶3 & Exh. 2.) On
4

Case 1:18-cv-00798-RMB Document 8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 5 of 19 PageID: 159

December 15, 2017, the warden denied the grievance. (Moran Dec.,
ECF No. 4-2, ¶3 & Exh. 2.) Petitioner did not appeal. (Id., ¶3.)
Instead, he filed the instant petition on January 19, 2018. (Pet.,
ECF No. 1.)
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

The Parties’ Arguments

Petitioner submits that he was serving part of his sentence
at a minimum security Satellite Camp until he was transferred to
the current facility at FCI Fort Dix after receiving an incident
report. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 3.) Petitioner appealed the sanctions
for the incident report, and the BOP reduced the violation to a
minor incident. (Id.) Petitioner asked his unit team to transfer
him back to the Satellite Camp. (Id.)
Petitioner’s unit team saw that Petitioner was within 17-19
months of his release date, and that he was eligible to spend the
last

twelve

months

of

his

sentence

in

an

RRC

or

on

home

confinement, pursuant to the Second Chance Act. (Id.) They advised
him he would be reviewed for RRC/home confinement placement instead
of being sent back to the Satellite Camp. (Id.)
Petitioner’s

unit

team

determined

that

nine

months

RRC

placement would meet his re-entry needs. (Id.) While the unit team
was making this decision, Petitioner was waiting for approval of
his

new

home

determined

address

that

home

upon

his

release.

confinement
5

was

(Id.)
not

The

unit

team

appropriate

for

Case 1:18-cv-00798-RMB Document 8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 6 of 19 PageID: 160

Petitioner because his new home address had not been approved.
(Pet., ECF No. 1 at 3.) After the unit team made this decision,
Petitioner’s new home address was approved. (Id.)
The Alvis House in Columbus, Ohio was chosen for Petitioner’s
RRC placement, and his initial release date to Alvis House was
April 9, 2018. (Id. at 3-4.) The RRC manager told Petitioner’s
wife4 that the next available bed was in November 2018, and
therefore, his RRC placement would be reduced to two months,
beginning on November 9, 2018. (Id. at 4.)5 The unavailability of
beds was due to budget cuts, and the RRC manager suggested that
Petitioner request home confinement in the alternative. (Id.)
Petitioner asked his unit team to reconsider home confinement
because two months in an RRC was insufficient for his reentry
needs. (Id.) The unit team denied his request. (Id.) Warden Ortiz
affirmed the unit team’s decision. (Id.) Petitioner states that he
is married and will be living with his wife when he is released.
(Id. at 4-5.) Petitioner had received an employment promise in
preparation for his RRC placement, and his employment was to begin
in May 2018. (Id. at 5.)

4

Petitioner submitted his wife’s affidavit. (Affidavit of Kenisha
Alexander, ECF No. 5.)
5

Notably, Petitioner does not challenge the BOP's finding that
bed space is not available at Alvis House until November 9,
2018.
6

Case 1:18-cv-00798-RMB Document 8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 7 of 19 PageID: 161

Petitioner contends the BOP’s failure to provide him with RRC
placement

or

home

confinement

for

nine

months,

as

the

BOP

determined was appropriate under the factors described in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3621(b), necessarily shows that the BOP’s two-month RRC placement
decision was not based on the factors described in § 3621(b) but
was solely due to unavailability of RRC bed space due to budget
cuts. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 4-5.) Additionally, Petitioner asserts
the BOP’s interpretation of the factors under § 3621(b) was
unreasonable because the same factors must be considered for RRC
placement

and

home

confinement,

and

the

statute

does

not

distinguish between the two. (Id. at 5.) Thus, Petitioner concludes
that if the § 3621(b) factors support a ninth-month RRC placement,
the factors would also support a nine-month home confinement rather
than a two-month RRC placement. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 9, 11.)
Respondent filed an Answer and opposes habeas relief because
Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before
filing the petition. (Answer, ECF No. 4 at 14-16.) Alternatively,
Respondent contends Petitioner is not entitled to relief because
the BOP made an individualized determination of Petitioner’s RRC
placement needs in compliance with the law. (Id. at 16-19.)
Respondent argues Petitioner is entitled, on habeas review, only
to

have

the

BOP

evaluate

him

appropriate factors. (Id. at 17.)

7

for

RRC

placement

under

the

Case 1:18-cv-00798-RMB Document 8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 8 of 19 PageID: 162

Respondent contends it is proper, under BOP policy, for a
reentry

manager

to

reduce

an

institution’s

placement

recommendation based on lack of bed space. (Answer, ECF No. 4 at
18.) Further, Respondent asserts Petitioner’s unit team considered
Petitioner’s eligibility for home confinement under the § 3621(b)
factors and found him ineligible for home confinement based on his
multiple

disciplinary

infractions,

the

most

recent

of

which,

possession of a cell phone, resulted in his prosecution and
additional three-month sentence. (Macavoy Decl., Attachment 5.)
Therefore, Respondent argues that if the Court reaches the merits
of the petition, it should be denied. (Answer, ECF No. 4 at 19.)
Petitioner claims exhaustion would be futile because the BOP
would deny relief at the higher levels of administrative review
based on BOP policies. (Reply, ECF No. 6 at 14.) Furthermore,
Petitioner contends exhaustion of his administrative remedies
could take 140 to 220 days, and it would be too late for him to
receive the relief requested. (Id. at 17-18.)
In

reply

acknowledges

to

the

merits

of

that

BOP

Program

his

petition,

Statement

7320.01

Petitioner
provides

additional criteria for consideration of home confinement pursuant
to the Second Chance Act. (Reply, ECF No. 6 at 3.) The criteria
include:

(1) appropriate release residence; (2) no recent “MAJOR”

disciplinary issues; (3) medical or mental health needs that can
be

met

in

the

community

and

funded
8

by

the

inmate

or

other

Case 1:18-cv-00798-RMB Document 8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 9 of 19 PageID: 163

resources;

(4)

secured

employment

is

not

required.

(Id.)

Petitioner argues that none of these factors weigh against his
home confinement. (Id.)
Petitioner relies on the BOP’s May 24, 2013 memorandum, which,
in addition to providing the above home confinement criteria,
states:
For
low
risk/low
need
inmates,
home
confinement is the preferred pre-release
option. This option is currently underutilized. Program Statement 7320.01, home
confinement, may be provided by contract
halfway house services, U.S. Probation, or
other government agencies. This is normally
accomplished via two home confinement options:
placement under the supervision of an RRC or
placement in the Federal Location Monitoring
(FLM) program, operated by U.S. Probation,
where available.
(Reply, ECF No. 6 at 6-7.) Finally, Petitioner asserts that the
BOP policy permitting a manager of an RRC to reduce the time an
inmate requires to meet his reentry needs based solely on lack of
available bed space is unreasonable and inconsistent with the
governing statutes. (Id. at 11.)
B.

Legal Standard
1.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

A federal prisoner must exhaust his administrative remedies
before filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241.
Vazquez v. Strada, 684 F.3d 431, 433 (3d Cir. 2012); Moscato v.
Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 98 F.3d 757, 760-62 (3d Cir. 1996). The

9

Case 1:18-cv-00798-RMB Document 8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 10 of 19 PageID: 164

BOP has a four-step administrative remedy process. 28 C.F.R. §
542.10 et seq. The prisoner must first attempt informal resolution
with prison staff. Id., § 542.13. If unsatisfied, the prisoner
must submit an administrative remedy request to the warden. Id.,
§ 542.14. If the prisoner wishes to appeal the warden’s decision,
the appeal is made to the appropriate Regional Director. 28 C.F.R.
§ 542.15. If the Regional Director denies the appeal, the final
step is for the prisoner to appeal to the General Counsel in the
BOP’s Central Office. 28 C.F.R. § 542.15. After the Central Office
considers

the

appeal,

the

administrative

remedy

process

is

exhausted. Id. § 542.18.
“Exhaustion is not required if administrative remedies would
be futile, if the actions of the agency clearly and unambiguously
violate

statutory

or

constitutional

rights,

or

if

the

administrative procedure is clearly shown to be inadequate to
prevent irreparable injury.” Lyons v. U.S. Marshals, 840 F.2d 202,
205 (3d Cir. 1988) (citing Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Marshall, 610
F.2d 1128, 1138 (3d Cir. 1979)); Gambino v. Morris, 134 F.3d 156,
171 (3d Cir. 1998) (Roth, J, concurring).
2.

RRC Placement

18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1)(effective April 9, 2008), as amended
by the Second Chance Act of 2007, governs RRC placements. The
statute provides, in pertinent part:
(c) Prerelease custody.—
10

Case 1:18-cv-00798-RMB Document 8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 11 of 19 PageID: 165

(1) In general.--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 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. Such conditions may
include
a
community
correctional
facility.
(2) Home confinement authority.--The
authority under this subsection may be
used to place a prisoner in home
confinement for the shorter of 10 percent
of the term of imprisonment of that
prisoner or 6 months.
(3)
Assistance.--The
United
States
Probation System shall, to the extent
practicable, offer assistance to a
prisoner during prerelease custody under
this subsection.
(4) No limitations.--Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed to limit or
restrict the authority of the Director of
the Bureau of Prisons under section 3621.
(5) Reporting …
(6)
Issuance
of
regulations.--The
Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall
issue regulations pursuant to this
subsection not later than 90 days after
the date of the enactment of the Second
Chance Act of 2007, which shall ensure
that
placement
in
a
community
correctional facility by the Bureau of
Prisons is—
(A) conducted in a manner consistent
with section 3621(b) of this title;

11

Case 1:18-cv-00798-RMB Document 8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 12 of 19 PageID: 166

(B) determined
basis; and

on

an

individual

(C) of sufficient duration to
provide the greatest likelihood of
successful reintegration into the
community.
The statutory factors the BOP must consider in making its RRC
placement decisions are found in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b):
(1)
the
resources
contemplated;
(2) the
offense;

nature

and

of

the

circumstances

facility

of

the

(3) the history and characteristics of the
prisoner;
(4) any statement by the court that imposed
the sentence—
(A) concerning the purposes for which the
sentence to imprisonment was determined
to be warranted; or
(B) recommending a type of penal or
correctional facility as appropriate;
and
(5) any pertinent policy statement issued by
the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section
994(a)(2) of title 28.
On May 24, 2013, the BOP issued its most recent RRC guidance.
(Macavoy Decl., Attachment 4, ECF No. 4-1 at 30-37.) The memorandum
addressed the need to focus BOP’s limited RRC spaces on inmates
with the greatest needs and the highest risk of recidivism. (Id.
at

30.)

According

to

the

memorandum,

“RRM

staff

will

not

unilaterally deny RRC referrals or reduce placement dates unless
12

Case 1:18-cv-00798-RMB Document 8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 13 of 19 PageID: 167

there are no available RRC beds within a reasonable distance for
the specific referral date/length.” (Macavoy Decl., Attachment 7
at 35.) Further, “if RRM staff determines a modification to a
referral is needed or that other placement options are available
. . . the change must be approved by the Warden.” (Id. at 35.)
The memorandum also discusses inmate eligibility for direct
home confinement, as outlined in BOP Program Statement 7320.01 and
18 U.S.C. 3624(c)(1). (Macavoy Decl., Attachment 7, ECF No. 4-1 at
34.) Basic criteria for home confinement includes:
1) Appropriate release residence (e.g.,
positive environment free from criminal/drug
use activity and a reasonable distance from
the RRC, typically less than 100 miles;
2) No recent major disciplinary issues. This
should
be
based
on
sound
correctional
judgment;
3) Any medical or mental health needs that can
be met in the community and funded by the
inmate or other documented resources, and
4) Secured employment is not required for
placement on home confinement.
(Id.) Judicial review of the BOP’s RRC placement decision is
limited to whether the BOP abused its discretion. Vasquez v.
Strada, 684 F.3d 431, 434 (3d Cir. 2012).
C.

Analysis
1.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Petitioner did not appeal the warden’s December 15, 2017
decision.

Under

the

BOP’s

administrative
13

remedy

program,

Case 1:18-cv-00798-RMB Document 8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 14 of 19 PageID: 168

Petitioner had twenty days to file an appeal to the Regional
Director. 28 C.F.R. § 541.15(a). The Regional Director then had
thirty days to respond, with the possibility of extending the
response date for thirty days. Id., § 542.18. If the Regional
Director denied relief, Petitioner had thirty days to file an
appeal with the Central Office. Id. § 542.15(a). The Central Office
had forty days to respond, unless it requested a twenty-day
extension. 28 C.F.R. § 542.18.
Assuming
extended

that

time

the

Regional

to

answer

his

Director

appeals,

and

Central

Petitioner

Office

would

have

exhausted his administrative remedies in 170 days, on June 4, 2018.
The relief Petitioner sought was to be released on home confinement
on April 9, 2018, equivalent to the high end of his unit team’s
RRC placement recommendation of 241-270 days. At the low end of
the

RRC

placement

recommendation,

Petitioner

would

have

been

transferred to an RRC on May 8, 2018. Thus, Petitioner could not
have obtained the full relief he seeks if he had first exhausted
his administrative remedies by appealing the warden’s December
2017 decision to the Regional Director and Central Office. See
Strong v. Schultz, 599 F.Supp. 2d 556, 561 (D.N.J. Feb. 26, 2009)
(finding exhaustion was futile where dismissal of petition as
unexhausted would effectively moot the petitioner’s § 2241 claim
through

no

fault

of

his

own.)

14

Therefore,

exhaustion

of

Case 1:18-cv-00798-RMB Document 8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 15 of 19 PageID: 169

administrative remedies is futile and the Court will address the
petition on the merits.
2.

RRC Placement Decision

Petitioner argues that the statutory factors the BOP must
consider under § 3621(b) are the same for RRC placement and home
confinement; therefore, a BOP determination that he should receive
nine months in an RRC is inconsistent with the determination that
he

is

not

eligible

for

home

confinement.

Petitioner

states

“[n]owhere in 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) or § 3621(b) says that when
assessing
factors

an inmate for a pre-release custody placement, relevant

should

be

taken

into

consideration

differently

when

considering placements between RRC and home confinement.” (Pet.,
ECF No. 1 at 9.)
Petitioner reads the statutes too narrowly.
agency

guideline

is

entitled

to

some

deference

A BOP internal
if

it

is

“a

permissible construction of the statute.” Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S.
50, 61 (1995) (quoting Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984) (“a court may not
substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a
reasonable

interpretation

made

by

the

administrator

of

an

agency.”)) 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) requires the BOP to determine the
proper

placement

for

a

prisoner’s

pre-release

custody

“under

conditions that will afford that prisoner a reasonable opportunity
to adjust to and prepare for the reentry of that prisoner into the
15

Case 1:18-cv-00798-RMB Document 8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 16 of 19 PageID: 170

community,” and either RRC placement or home confinement are
options for pre-release custody pursuant to § 3624(c)(1) and (2).
The BOP must consider the factors under § 3621(b) in making such
a determination. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(6)(A). Although the same
statutory factors are considered, certain factors may weigh in
favor of RRC Placement over home confinement or vice versa.
Further, the May 24, 2013 BOP Memorandum setting forth “basic
criteria”

for

home

confinement

corresponds

to,

and

is

not

inconsistent with the § 3621(b) factors. For instance, the basic
criterion of an appropriate release residence (e.g., positive
environment free from criminal/drug use activity and a reasonable
distance

from

the

RRC)

corresponds

to

the

§

3621(b)

factor

concerning the resources of the facility. A petitioner’s home as
the facility for pre-release custody does not provide any resources
to assist an inmate in avoiding drug use or otherwise avoiding
criminal activity.
The basic criterion of “no recent major disciplinary issues”
corresponds

to

the

§

3621(b)

factor

of

the

history

and

characteristics of the prisoner. It is reasonable for the BOP to
conclude that prisoners who have recently had major disciplinary
issues may require greater supervision than is available under
home confinement because the prisoner continues to have difficulty
following rules. The home confinement criterion of whether the
prisoner’s medical and mental health needs can be met in the
16

Case 1:18-cv-00798-RMB Document 8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 17 of 19 PageID: 171

community also corresponds to the § 3621(b) factor of the history
and characteristics of the prisoner.
Finally, the BOP determined that secured employment is not
required for placement on home confinement, which is consistent
with the fact that employability of the prisoner is not a factor
under § 3621(b). For these reasons, the BOP reasonably considered
whether RRC or home confinement was the appropriate pre-release
custody for Petitioner under the BOP internal policy memorandum
and §§ 3624(c) and 3621(b). See Kaiser v. Hollingsworth, No. 161288, 2016 WL 6246308, at *4 (D.N.J. Oct. 25, 2016) (unit team did
not abuse its discretion when it considered § 3621(b) factors and
recommended 30 days of RRC placement rather than six months of
home confinement).
Petitioner’s next argument is that § 3624 directs the BOP to
make an individual determination that ensures that pre-release
custody placement is “of sufficient duration” to provide the
greatest

likelihood

of

successful

reintegration

into

the

community. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 9.) Petitioner contends that
permitting an RRC manager to reduce the duration of RRC placement
based on availability of bed space is inconsistent with the
statutory directive of ensuring a sufficient duration of prerelease custody to provide the greatest likelihood of successful
reintegration into the community.

17

Case 1:18-cv-00798-RMB Document 8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 18 of 19 PageID: 172

While

Petitioner’s

contention

has

some

merit,

the

BOP’s

policy permitting the RRC manager to reduce the duration of RRC
placement only if there are no available beds for the specific
referral date, and only upon approval of the warden, is not an
unreasonable interpretation of § 3621(b). One of the factors to be
considered for pre-release custody placement under § 3621(b) is
“the

resources

reasonable

of

distance

the

facility.”

does

not

If

have

the
a

only

bed

RRC

within

available

on

a

the

recommended release date, it is not an unreasonable interpretation
of

the

statute

to

provide

RRC

placement

on

the

earliest

availability after the date recommended by the unit team and
warden, as determined by the residential reentry manager. See Hill
v. Hendrix, Civ. Action No. 17-62, 2018 WL 1995524 (N.D.W. Va.
Apr.

27,

2018)

(prisoner’s

“RRC

placement

was

reduced

and

subsequently eliminated based upon statutorily mandated factors
that the BOP is required to consider when determining where to
incarcerate an inmate, including the resources of the prospective
incarceration
history

and

facility

(RRC

characteristics

bed
of

space
the

availability)

prison

and

([inmate’s]

the

recent

disciplinary infraction”)); Cook v. Rivera, No. 12-853, 2012 WL
5199224, at *5 (D.S.C. Sept. 12, 2012) ().
The statutes do not require the BOP to reconsider home
confinement

after

determining

that

RRC

placement

for

the

recommended duration is unavailable. Even if the policy Petitioner
18

Case 1:18-cv-00798-RMB Document 8 Filed 05/21/18 Page 19 of 19 PageID: 173

urges is sound, a court may not substitute its own construction of
a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the
administrator of an agency. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843. Therefore,
the Court denies the petition.
III. CONCLUSION
For

the

reasons

discussed

above,

the

Court

grants

Petitioner’s motion to expedite and denies the § 2241 petition.

An appropriate Order follows.
DATE: May 21, 2018

s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge

19