Hairston v. Wilson
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on 8/11/2014. (rban, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
Arthur L. Hairston, Sr.,
Petitioner,
V.
Eric Wilson,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
l:13cv895 (TSE/JFA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Arthur L. Hairston, Sr., a federal inmate housed in the Eastern District of Virginia and
proceeding pro re, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
arguing that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has failed to comply with The Second Chance Act's
requirement that it issue guidelines on how an inmate is to be evaluated for placement into a
Residential Re-Entry Center ("RRC") and the computation ofhis sentence.' On January 29,
2014, respondent filed a response to the petition. Hairston was giventhe opportunity to file
responsive materials, pursuantto Roseboro v. Garrison. 528 F.2d309 (4th Cir. 1975), and has
filed a response. After careful review of the parties' submissions, petitioner's application must be
dismissed because it is clear that he is not entitled to the relief he seeks. Also before the Court is
petitioner's Motion for this Court to Shorten the Time Frame forRespondent to Respond, which
will be denied as moot.
' Petitioner made the same claims in an earlier petition for § 2241 writ of habeas corpus in Hairston v. Wilson. Case
No. I:13cvl26 (TSE/IDD). The petition in that casewas dismissed without prejudice on February 5,2013, for
petitioner's failure toexhaust his administrative remedies with respect tothe claim. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit subsequently affirmed that result. Hairston v. Wilson. No. 13-6267 (4th Cir. July 9,
2013).
I. Background
On July 27,2001, Hairston was sentenced, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia, to a 290-month term of incarceration for conspiracy to
distribute crack cocaine, and multiple counts of distribution of crack cocaine. Hawkins Aff. T15.
Petitioner's sentence later was reduced to a term of 183 months. Hairston is currently
incarcerated at FCI Petersburg and is projected to be released from his federal sentence on
December 31,2014, per a good conduct time release.
To assist inmates in re-entering society, BOP will, if appropriate after analyzing
an inmate's particularized circumstances, approve an inmate's request to spend the very last
portionof his sentence of incarceration at a RRC, a facility that is colloquially known as a
"halfway house." ^
18 U.S.C. § 3624(c). BOP can also authorizean inmate to spend the
remainder of his sentence of incarceration in direct home confinement. See id. The relevant
"Unit Team" responsible for monitoring Hairston's incarcerationat FCI Petersburg
recommended, in October 2013, that Hairston have a placement of 270 days in an RRC or be
placed on home confinement. Hawkins Aff. TI11. hi reaching this recommendation, the Unit
Team evaluated the five factors emunerated in Title 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) and Mr. Hairston's
individual needs. Id at
12. That recommendation was referred to the appropriate BOP
Residential Reentry Management Branch("RRMB") and ultimately was withdrawn by the
RRMB"based upon [Hairston's] medical condition" and the fact that his release destination was
over 200 miles fi*om the closest RRC facility. Id
After Hairston's Unit Team again met with Hairston on January 10,2014, the Unit Team
made the following referral:
Mr. Hairston has been reviewed and is considered a good candidate for direct
home confinement. He was reviewed under 18 USC 3621b: 1. There are available
RRCs in his release area. 2, The nature and circumstances of the offense indicate
he is eligible for RRC participation. There are no extenuating circumstances that
would preclude placement. 3. He has a stable residence. 4. The sentencing court
did not make any statement on the Judgment in a Criminal Case regarding RRC
placement. 5. There is no pertinent policy by the Sentencing Commission.
Institutional Referral for RRC Placement, Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Register Number 03705-087
(imdated); Hawkins Aff. Attach 6.
Hairston's recommendation was based upon the five factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3621(b) and the individual facts of Hairston's case. Hawkins. Aff. TI15.
II. Parties* Arguments
Plaintiff states he is challenging "the BOP's interpretation of [18 U.S.C.] § 3624, §3621
and the Second Chance Act." Pet. 5. Petitioner contends that the Director of the BOP has failed
to issue regulations on how an inmate is considered for RRC placement or home confinement, as
the Second Chance Act requires. Pet. Handwritten Attach. 1,2 of 5; Pet'r's Traverse 1. Petitioner
extends his argument to challenge the execution of his sentence, contending that he is not being
appropriately considered for RRC placement because as the BOP has failed to comply with
§ 3624's requirement that it issue regulations, any consideration he received for placement into a
RRC fails to use these required regulations. Pet. 1. As relief petitioner requests that "the attorney
general and the new DirectorCharlesSamuels be ordered consistent with ... the Second Chance
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3624, and 18 U.S.C. § 3621 ... to issue the Regulations and incentives for the
lawfull [sic] necessary consideration for RRC placement." Pet. Handwritten Attach. 3 of 5, see
Pet'r's Traverse 3. Hairston also seeks placement to "direct home confinement immediately due
to the fact that the Attorney General and the Directorof the Bureauof Prisons have not to date
issued regulations." Pet'r's Traverse 1; docket #11.
Respondent responds by arguing that the BOP has issued regulations as required by the
Second Chance Act of 2007 and that Hairston has received the individualized review for
placement into a RRC required by law. Resp. Pet. Writ of Habeas Corpus [hereinafter Resp.] 12; docket # 8.
Hairston filed a reply to respondent's response, in which he repeats many of the
allegations and arguments in his original petition but tweaks his argument slightly to argue that
the regulations issued by the Director of the BOP are "known to be ineffective" and thus fail to
meet 18 U.S.C. § 3624's requirement. Compare, e.g.. pet. handwritten attach. 2-4 (arguing that
the regulations required by the Second Chance Act have not been issued), with Pet'r's Traverse 2
(arguing the former regulations were held to be invalid and therefore "adoption [of] the old
regulations" fails to comply vwth the Second Chance Act.).
III. Analysis
A. Regulations Required bv 18 U.S.C. $ 3624
Hairston's contention that the BOP failed to issue regulations required by 18 U.S.C.
§3624(c) is wholly vdthout merit. Title 18 of the US Code, section 3624(c) requires the Director
of the Bureau of Prisons to ensure, "to the extent practicable," that a prisoner serve a portion of
his final sentence, "under conditions that will afford that prisoner a reasonable opportunity to
adjust to prepare for the reentry" into the conmiunity. 18 U.S.C. § 2624(c)(1). This placement
can be in home confinement, § 3624(c)(2), or a RRC. ^
18 U.S.C. § 2624(c)(l)(2). Subsection
six of § 3642, requires the Directorof the BOP to "issue regulations pursuantto this subsection .
.. after... the enactment of the Second Chance Act of 2007." §3624(c)(6).
The Second Chance Act, signed into law on April 9,2008, requires the BOP to issue new
regulations to ensure that RRC placements are "(A) conducted in a manner consistent with
section 3621(b) of this title; (B) determined on an individual basis;and (C) of sufficient duration
to provide the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the community." 18 U.S.C. §
3624(c)(6). Incompliance with the above, the BOP adopted the regulations set forth in 28 C.F.R.
§ 570.20 -.22., 73 Fed. Reg. 32440,2008 WL 4619649 (October 21,2008). As such, petitioner is
not entitled to an "order [directing] the Directorof the Bureauof Prisons and the Attorney
General to issue the regulations," pet'r's traverse 3 (quoting petitioner's requested relief),
because the BOP hasalready issued the regulations required by § 6324(c)(6). As such, this claim
must be denied, as moot.
B. Hairston's Sentence
As Hairston's first claim is without merit, his second claim also must fail. Hairston
argues that his sentence is not, and indeedcannot, be calculated correctly because as the Director
of the BOP has failed to issueguidelines, these guidelines are not being used to calculate his
sentence. Pet. Handwritten Attach. 1 of 5. As addressed above in part III.A, the BOP adopted the
regulations required by § 3624(c). Further, as respondent correctly pointsout, these guidelines
were used to recommend initially that Hairston receive 270 days of RRC placement and again
later used to recommend that Hairston be transferred to home confmement Hawkins Decl. fT]
11-2,14-15. As such, Hairston is not entitled to the relief he seeks.
IV.
For the above stated reasons, this petition will be dismissed. An appropriate Order shall
issue.
a-
« H
Entered this
day of
2014.
U
^
Alexandria, Virginia
T. S, Ellis, III
United Stales District Judge
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?