Correll v. The United States of America et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting 11 Motion to Dismiss; adopting 14 Report and Recommendation; overruling 15 Objection to Report and Recommendation.; denying 16 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 3/31/15. (SLW)

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MAR 3 1 2015

~~

****************************************************
*
TRAVIS EMORY CORRELL,
CIV 14-4158
*
*
Petitioner,
*
*
vs.
ORDER
*
*
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
*
ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General;
*
CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR.,
*
Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons;
*
PAUL M. LAIRD, Regional Director,
*
Federal Bureau of Prisons; and
*
W. SCOTT WILLIS, Warden,
*
Federal Prison Camp Yankton,
*
*
Respondents.
*
*
****************************************************
Petitioner brings this prose Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 2241.
Also pending before the Court is Respondents' Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 11. The Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Petition be denied. Petitioner filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation.
This Court recognizes that 18 U.S.C. § 3625 precludes judicial review of individual RDAP
program entry determinations, Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 2011), unless there
is a violation of established federal law or a violation of the Constitution. There is no violation of
federal law as the Bureau of Prisons in making this individual determination did not exceed its
statutory authority nor did it otherwise violate federal law or the Constitution.

The Court

understands that Petitioner Correll is not requesting entry into RDAP. Having additional sentencing
reduction incentives for federal prisons might be good public policy. However, given the separation
of powers, the Courts cannot fashion such programs as new programs would have to come from the
Legislative and the Executive branches ofthe government. No violation ofstatutory or constitutional

law or settled federal law has been identified by Mr. Correll and thus no cause of action is stated even
though the complaint and other pleadings from Mr. Correll are thoughtful and well presented so the
appointment of counsel was not warranted. This action will not be counted as a strike in the threestrike barrier in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, to filing actions in federal court.
Jennings v. Netrona County Detention Center Medical Facility, 175 F.3d 775, 779 (10th Cir. 1999).

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

That the Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, Doc. 15, are overruled.

2.

That the Report and Recommendation, Doc. 14, is ADOPTED.

3.

That Respondents' Motion to Dismiss, Doc. 11, is GRANTED.

4.

That Petitioner's Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus under 28 U.S. C. § 2241,
Doc. 1, is DENIED with prejudice.

5.

That Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel, Doc. 16, is DENIED.

Dated this 31st dayofMarch, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

ATTEST:
JOSEPH HAAS, CLERK

d

BY~DEPUTY
fih.fu,