Jones v. Young
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM OPINION that petitioners claims are moot and without merit. Signed by Magistrate Judge Caroline Craven on 6/30/2015. (sm, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
WILLIAM YANCEY JONES
§
VS.
§
S. YOUNG
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14cv89
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner William Yancey Jones, proceeding pro se, filed
this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241.1
The Petition
Petitioner believes the Bureau of Prisons should have
determined that he be assigned to a Residential Reentry Center
(“RRC”) 12 months prior to the expiration of his sentence.
Instead, the Bureau determined he would only be assigned to an
RRC for the last 151-180 days of his sentence.
Petitioner
asserts this determination violated the Second Chance Act, which
is codified, in part, at 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c).
Discussion
As stated above, petitioner complains that he has been
improperly denied placement in a Residential Reentry Center for a
1
Pursuant to the written consent of the parties, this matter has been
assigned to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for all
proceedings, including entry of judgment.
full 12 month term.
However, after the petition was filed,
petitioner informed the court that he has been transferred to a
RRC in St. Louis, Missouri.
A lawsuit is rendered moot “when the court cannot grant the
relief requested by the moving party.”
Salgado v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 220 Fed.Appx. 256, 257 (5th Cir. Feb. 22, 2007) (citing
Brown v. Resor, 407 F.3d 282, 283 (5th Cir. 1969) and Bailey v.
Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987)).
The issue of
whether a case is moot presents a jurisdictional matter because
it implicates the requirement set forth in Article III of the
Constitution that an actual controversy exist at all stages of
federal court proceedings.
Bailey, 821 F.2d at 278.
A moot case
“presents no Article III case or controversy, and a court has no
constitutional jurisdiction to resolve the issue it presents.”
Adair v. Dretke, 150 Fed.Appx. 329, 331 (5th Cir. Oct. 6, 2005)
(citation omitted).
Petitioner asks the Court to direct the Bureau to transfer
him to a RRC earlier than the Bureau previously determined.
As
petitioner has already been transferred to an RRC, the Court can
no longer grant him the relief he seeks. As this Court cannot
grant the relief requested by petitioner, this petition is moot.
In addition, even if this petition were not moot, petitioner
would still not be entitled to relief because his claims are
without merit.
2
In compliance with the Second Chance Act, the Bureau of
Prisons promulgated a regulation that provides, in pertinent
part:
Inmates will be considered for pre-release community confinement in a manner consistent with 18 U.S.C. Section
3621(b), determined on an individual basis, and of sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of
successful reintegration into the community, within the
time-frames set forth in this part.
28 C.F.R. § 570.22.
In turn, § 3621(b) requires the Bureau to
consider the following five factors when determining a prisoner’s
place of imprisonment: (1) the resources of the facility
contemplated; (2) the nature and circumstances of the prisoner’s
offense; (3) the prisoner’s history and characteristics; (4) any
statement by the sentencing court; and (5) any pertinent policy
statement issued by the Sentencing Commission.
The respondent has provided evidence that the Bureau
considered the five statutory factors, including the nature and
circumstances of petitioner’s offense and his history and
characteristics, before determining that he should spend less
than 12 months in a RRC.
A declaration from James D. Cook, a
supervisory attorney with the Bureau of Prisons, states that in
February, 2014, petitioner was appropriately reviewed for RRC
placement under the five factors set forth in § 3621.
The review
concluded that petitioner should be placed in an RRC 5-6 months
prior to his release date.
3
While petitioner disagrees with the Bureau’s conclusion that
he not be placed in an RRC for 12 months, he would only be
entitled to relief in this proceeding if he established he was in
custody in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United
States.
However, petitioner’s disagreement with the Bureau’s
conclusion as to how much time he should spend in a RRC does not
establish a constitutional violation as nothing in the Second
Chance Act or § 3621(b) entitles petitioner or any other prisoner
to any guaranteed placement in a RRC.
See Johnson v. Pearson,
2009 WL 5217022 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 29, 2009); Wilson v. Keffer,
2009 WL 1230020 (W.D. La. May 5, 2009); Reid v. Dewalt, 2009 WL
2448023 (E.D.Ky. Feb. 11, 2009).
“The duration of RRC placement
is a matter to which the [Bureau of Prisons] retains
discretionary authority.”
Walker v. Sanders, 2009 WL 2448023
(C.D.Cal. Aug. 10, 2009).
In light of the consideration that the
Bureau gave petitioner’s request for placement in a RRC for 12
months, as set forth in the declaration of Mr. Cook, it cannot be
concluded the decision to place petitioner in a RRC for less than
12 months was an abuse of discretion.
See Banks v. Pearson, 2010
WL 2817180 at *4 (S.D.Miss. Mar. 22, 2010) (“The record before
the court established [the Bureau] considered the appropriate
4
.
factors–which is all it was required to do ....”).
Petitioner’s
claims are therefore without merit.2
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, petitioner’s claims are
moot and without merit.
An appropriate final judgment shall be
entered.
SIGNED this 30th day of June, 2015.
____________________________________
CAROLINE M. CRAVEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
Petitioner also asserts he was improperly denied a one year sentence
reduction upon completion of the Residential Drug Abuse Program. However, 28
C.F.R. § 550.55 provides that inmates such as petitioner, who have a prior
conviction for robbery, are ineligible for a sentence reduction.
5
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?