Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01390/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01390-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William Phillip Murphy, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-1390-PHX-GMS (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On June 28, 2012, William Phillip Murphy filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and following the district court’s dismissal with leave to

amend, on September 18, 2012 he filed an Amended Petition. In his Amended Petition he

argues that he is eligible for early release following completion of the Residential Drug

Abuse Program (RDAP) authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e). He argues that because he was

incarcerated in the Fifth Circuit, where he was ineligible for early release, instead of in the

Ninth Circuit, where he would have been eligible, he was wrongly denied the opportunity for

early release by being held in Texas rather than in Arizona. Murphy has fully exhausted his

administrative remedies prior to filing his federal petition. Respondents contend that Murphy

is ineligible in either jurisdiction based upon his criminal history, and therefore the petition

should be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Court agrees and recommends that the

petition be denied.

Case 2:12-cv-01390-GMS Document 12 Filed 05/03/13 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Ninth Circuit ruled that previous regulations categorically excluding prisoners

with convictions involving firearms and for aggravated assault from eligibility for early

release were invalid. Arrington v. Daniels, 516 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2008); Crickon v.

Thomas, 579 F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2009). New regulations, which took effect in 2009 and

therefore apply to Murphy, have been upheld. Peck v. Thomas, 697 F.3d 767, 771 (9th Cir.

2012).

- 2 -

BACKGROUND

Following his conviction for Felon in Possession of a Firearm, Murphy was sentenced

in the District of Arizona on April 1, 2010, to a term of 45 months followed by 3 years of

supervised release. He was designated to FCI Bastrop, Texas, and arrived there on May 28,

2010 (Doc. 10, Exh 1, ¶ 3). Murphy entered into RDAP on October 1, 2010, and began

participating on October 22, 2010 (Doc. 5, Exh 1; Doc. 10, Exh 1, ¶ 2). On October 28,

2010, the BOP’s Designations and Sentence Computation Center computed Murphy’s

eligibility for a § 3621(e) sentence reduction, and denied him an early release incentive, as

precluded under Program Statement 5162.05, based on his current conviction for Felon in

Possession, and a prior conviction for Aggravated Assault, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 550.55

(Id., Attachment 2). Murphy completed RDAP on July 22, 2011 (Id., Exh 1, ¶ 2). Murphy

is currently serving a three-year term of supervised release (Id., Exh 1, ¶ 5).

DISCUSSION

Section 3621(b)(3) allows for early release as a discretionary incentive that may be

granted by BOP to prisoners who successfully participate in the RDAP. Under the current

regulations,1

 several categories of inmates, however, are not eligible for early release,

including inmates with a prior felony or misdemeanor conviction for aggravated assault or

an offense that involved the carrying, possession, or use of a firearm or other dangerous

weapon. 28 C.F.R. § 550.55(b)(4), (5). Murphy has a prior 1989 state conviction for

aggravated assault, and has a current conviction for Felon in Possession of a Firearm. See

Exh 1, Attachments 5, 6; ¶ 3, Attachment 3. Murphy is therefore ineligible for early release.

Case 2:12-cv-01390-GMS Document 12 Filed 05/03/13 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

Murphy also argues that he was denied a request for a “nearer release transfer” to the

District of Arizona, an incentive for successful participation in RDAP. See 28 C.F.R. §

550.54(a)(2)(iii). He maintains that if he had been transferred, he would have been eligible

for early release. The Court has already ruled that Murphy would not have been eligible for

early release, so the transfer would have made no difference. In addition, Murphy

characterizes BOP’s decision as arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary

to their own program statement. Murphy alleges that his request was denied in order to

deliberately and selectively limit his incentives. The Court lacks jurisdiction to review

individualized RDAP determinations made pursuant to § 3621. Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d

1224, 1228 (9th Cir. 2011). Judicial review is limited to allegations that such action is

contrary to established federal law or the United States Constitution, or that BOP exceeded

its statutory authority. Id. Murphy does not allege a constitutional or statutory violation, or

that BOP exceeded its statutory authority. Noncompliance with a BOP program statement

is not a violation of federal law. Id. at 1227.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Murphy’s Amended Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice (Doc. 5).

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen

days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report

and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any

factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right

Case 2:12-cv-01390-GMS Document 12 Filed 05/03/13 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 4 -

to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01390-GMS Document 12 Filed 05/03/13 Page 4 of 4