Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06730/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06730-0/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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JON R. SIMPSON, CASE NO. CV-F-03-6730 REC WMW HC

Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING FURTHER BRIEFING

FROM RESPONDENT

RAYMOND ANDREWS, 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This case proceeds on Petitioner’s Amended Petition filed April 29,

2004.

Petitioner contends that the Federal Bureau of Prisons and Mr. Andrews, in his capacity as

Warden of Taft Correctional Institution, erred in denying a one-year sentence reduction from

Petitioner’s projected release date pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 3621(e)(2)(B). Petitioner claims that

contrary to the finding of the Bureau of Prisons, he was not convicted of robbery, but rather of aiding

and abetting in a robbery in the second degree, a nonviolent offense. He further claims that the

reassessment of his eligibility for early release is impermissible because it disrupted his settled

expectations. See Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2000); Curt v. Crabtree, 113 F.3d 1081 (9th

Cir. 1997).

In regard to Petitioner’s claim that the reassessment of his release date was illegal because it

Case 1:03-cv-06730-OWW -WMW Document 36 Filed 04/25/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

disrupted his settled expectations, Respondent argues that Bowen and Curt are distinguishable. Bowen

involved a modification to Program Statement 5330.10, to exclude inmates from a Section 

3621(e) sentence reduction based on possession of a firearm. The issue there was the legality of

applying this new exclusion to prisoners who were already in the program. Curt involved the retroactive

application of a new limitation on what constitutes a “nonviolent offense” under Section 3621(e) to

exclude unarmed robbery. Respondent argues that no such changes in policy are implicated in this case

To support his argument, Respondent provides the declaration of Elizabeth De Silva, to which

he attaches a copy of a U.S. Department of Justice document dated October 9, 1997, the purposes of

which is to “transmit changes fo PS 5330.10, Drug Abuse Programs Manual, Inmate.” Respondent

argues that this document shows that, “the adult conviction of a prior violent crime conviction [sic],

specifically an adult conviction of robbery, has always prohibited an inmate from being eligible under

Section 3621(e).” The document, however, provides no information regarding the state of the

regulations before it was enacted on October 9, 1997. It appears from the Table of Changes that the

entirety of Chapter Six was replaced at that time. Therefore, the court is unable to discern whether the

prior version(s) of Chapter Six of the Drug Abuse Programs Manual provided that an adult conviction

of robbery always prohibited an inmate from being eligible under Section 3621(e). Accordingly, the

court finds it necessary to order further briefing from Respondent on this issue.

Additionally, in his traverse, Petitioner raises an issue regarding the definition of “prior

conviction,” and possible changes in that definition. The questions raised here is what definition of

“prior conviction” applies to Petitioner’s case, in light of the apparent fact that his robbery conviction

was subsequent to the conviction for which he is presently incarcerated. Further briefing from

Respondent is need on this issue also.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this

order, Respondent shall provide further briefing on the two issues identified above. Respondent shall

provide declarations as required, including copies of relevant chapters of earlier additions of the Drug

Abuse manual. Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days thereafter to respond to Respondent’s briefing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

Case 1:03-cv-06730-OWW -WMW Document 36 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 3
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

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06730-OWW -WMW Document 36 Filed 04/25/06 Page 3 of 3