Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00472/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00472-0/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 (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 1

By Order dated September 13, 2011, the District Court dismissed Grounds Three and Four

of the Amended Petition and ordered Respondents to respond to Grounds One and Two. (Doc. 18).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Randy Jenkins, 

Petitioner,

v. 

Craig Apker, et al., 

Respondents. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-472-TUC-RCC (JM)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Randy Jenkins, an inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons,

filed a pro se Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 13) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241.1

 Petitioner alleges that Respondents have violated the Constitution and several

United States Statutes by refusing to recommend less than the full 12 month placement in a

Residential Re-entry Center (“RRC”). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 626(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule – Civil 72.1(b). As discussed

below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the petition be denied in part and granted in

part and recommends that the District Court order that Respondents assist Petitioner in

obtaining identification prior to his release.

I. Background

Petitioner is serving a 90-month sentence followed by 3 years of Supervised Release

following a conviction for Conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, Securities Fraud and

False Statement in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 78, Wire Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343,

Case 4:11-cv-00472-RCC-JR Document 42 Filed 03/21/12 Page 1 of 8
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

International Money Laundering and Concealing Money Laundering in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1956, Transferring and Laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, and Forfeiture

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and 982 and 28 U.S.C. § 2461. Answer, Exhibit 1,

Attachment 1. Petitioenr is projected to complete his sentence on November 20, 2012 via

Good Conduct Time Release. Id., Attachment 2. 

Pursuant to the standards of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (“SCA”), the Bureau of

Prisons (“BOP”) is required to consider prisoner placement in RRCs. The Act requires the

Director of the BOP “to the extent practicable, ensure that a prisoner serving a term of

imprisonment spends a portion of the final months of that term, not to exceed 12 months,

under conditions that will afford that prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and

prepare for the reentry of that prisoner into the community. Such conditions may include a

community correctional facility.” 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1). 

On November 2, 2010, Petitioner’s Unit Team completed a Inmate Skills

Development Plan that covered numerous vocational, career, educational, mental health and

daily living categories of information. Id., Attachment 3. At the end of the Plan, the Unit

Team recommended “a 6-8 month RCC placement based on limited work experience as an

employee, [and] no current residence.” The Team also noted that Petitioner “does not have

a substance abuse history & is highly educated.” Id.

On April 19, 2011, Petitioner’s Unit Team conducted another evaluation for RRC

placement. This time, the Unit Team recommended an RRC placement of 7-9 months “based

on homelessness, lack of marketable job skills, length of sentence and no prior history as an

employee.” The Team also noted that Petitioner is facing the possibility of a large Internal

Revenue Service sanction and that “he has not had a U.S. drivers license since 1982.”

Answer, Exhibit 1, Attachment 3. 

On January 5, 2011, after first seeking Informal Resolution, Petitioner appealed the

initial decision in a Request for Administrative Remedy. Id, Attachment 3. He alleged that

the BOP had “failed to identify the criterion upon which the incentive of a maximum RRC

Case 4:11-cv-00472-RCC-JR Document 42 Filed 03/21/12 Page 2 of 8
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

placement will actually be made based upon the separate and distinct criterion of reentry

programming.” Id. In response, Complex Warden Craig Apker noted that the Unit Team had

based their recommendation on Petitioner’s limited work experience and because he had no

current residence, and informed Petitioner that, if he was dissatisfied with the response, he

could appeal to the Wester Regional Director. Id.

Petitioner next filed a Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal alleging that the BOP,

in determining his RRC placement, “failed to implement 42 U.S.C. [§] 17541 particularly

(a)(1)(G); (a)(2)(A) & (B) as well as (b)(1) as it relates to assisting in inmates in obtaining

identification.” Id. In response, Regional Director Robert McFadden informed Petitioner

in pertinent part that:

The Bureau of Prisons utilizes Program Statement 7310.04,

Community Corrections Center (CCC) Utilization and Transfer

Procedure, and the criteria set forth in the Second Chance Act

of 2007, when considering RRC placement. * * * You have

been advised by your Unit Team that you will be referred for a

six to eight month RRC placement. The Unit Team has made an

individualized determination regarding your RRC placement to

address your transitional needs. The purpose of RRCs is to

provide a transitional environment for inmates nearing the end

of their sentences. They offer accountability and program

opportunities in employment counseling and placement,

substance abuse, and daily life skills. If you have concerns

regarding your transitional needs, such as obtaining

identification, we highly recommend that you begin by active

participation in the Release Preparation Program (RPP) during

the remainder of incarceration. 

Id. The Regional Director concluded by noting his agreement with the Unit Team’s

determination and the Warden’s response and informing Petitioner of his right to appeal the

decision to the Office of the General Counsel of the Bureau of Prisons. Id.

On March 28, 2011, Petitioner filed a Central Office Administrative Remedy Appeal

alleging that the Regional Director’s decision was “a lame bureaucratic response,” and

characterizing the central issue as BOP’s inaction to formulate incentives as required by the

Second Chance Act. Id. In response, Harrell Watts, Administrator of National Inmate

Appeals wrote, in pertinent part that:

Case 4:11-cv-00472-RCC-JR Document 42 Filed 03/21/12 Page 3 of 8
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

Inmates are considered [for RRC placement] on an individual

basis for pre-release community confinement in a manner

consistent with the five-factor criteria established at 18 U.S.C.

§ 3621(b) that include the resources of the facility contemplated,

the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and

characteristics of the prisoner, any statement by the court that

imposed the sentence, and any pertinent policy statement issued

by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Additionally,

determinations are based on the individual’s needs, existing

community resources, institutional adjustment, length of

sentence, and the need to provide for the safety and security of

the general public. No inmate is entitled to either RRC

placement or placement of a particular duration.

Id. The National Administrator then found that Petitioner’s RRC placement needs were

assessed by the Unit Team “in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Second

Chance Act of 2007, Public Law 110-199, and 28 C.F.R. Part 570,” and the appeal was

denied. Id.

II. Discussion

A. Exhaustion

Petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies by filing appeals at the local,

regional and national levels. See Exhibit 1, Attachment 4 and discussion above.

B. Merits

1. RCC Placement

To be entitled to habeas relief, Petitioner must show that “[h]e is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or statutes to the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §

2241(c)(3). Petitioner’s primary arguments are directed at Respondents’ decision to

recommend that he be placed in a RRC for 7 to 9 months rather than the maximum 12

months. That decision was prompted by 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) which requires that “[t]he

Director of the Bureau of Prisons . . . to the extent practicable, ensure that a prisoner serving

a term of imprisonment spends a portion of the final months of that term (not to exceed 12

months) . . . that will afford that prisoner a reasonable opportunity . . . of reentry of that

prisoner into the community. Such conditions may include a community correctional

Case 4:11-cv-00472-RCC-JR Document 42 Filed 03/21/12 Page 4 of 8
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

5

facility.” In implementing this statute, the BOP is to apply the five factors identified in 18

U.S.C. § 3621(b). That statute, in relevant part, provides:

(b) Place of imprisonment.– The Bureau of Prisons shall

designate the place of the prisoner’s imprisonment. The Bureau

may designate any available penal or correctional facility that

meet minimum standards of health and habitability established

by the Bureau, whether maintained by the Federal Government

or otherwise and whether within or without the judicial district

in which the person was convicted, that the Bureau determines

to be appropriate and suitable, considering– 

(1) the resources of the facility contemplated; 

(2) the nature and circumstances to the offense;

(3) the history and characteristics of the prisoner;

(4) any statement by the court that imposed the sentence–

(A) concerning the purposes for which the

sentence to imprisonment was determined

to be warranted; or

(B) recommending a type of penal or

correctional facility as appropriate; and 

(5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing

Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(2) of title 28.

Id.

In his criticism of the application of these factors in his case, Petitioner notes a since

terminated policy of the BOP to cap RRC placement at six months. Memorandum, pp. 13-

14. Petitioner contends that the policy, despite its termination, has become habit and he was

effectively denied an individualized determination that, he asserts, would have resulted in

“inmates like Jenkins the full benefits of 12 months RRC placement . . . .” Id. at 17.

Petitioner then outlines the factors identified in section 3621(b) and explains how he satisfies

them. 

As a threshold matter, the Petitioner’s Unit Team recommended an RRC placement

of 7-9 months and not the 6 months Petitioner suggests. In reaching this determination, the

BOP was obligated to act in good faith in the proper exercise of its discretion. Rodriguez v.

Case 4:11-cv-00472-RCC-JR Document 42 Filed 03/21/12 Page 5 of 8
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

6

Smith, 2007 WL 628663 (E.D.Cal. Feb. 28, 2007), aff’d 541 F.3d 1880, 1887 (9th Cir.2008).

There is nothing in the record that suggests that the BOP failed on this account. 

Although the material submitted by Respondents does not identically mirror the

provisions of section 3621(b), it does reflect that Petitioner was evaluated at length,

particularly in relation to factor three, the history and characteristics of the prisoner. In the

Unit Team’s recommendation, several factors supporting the 7-9 month RCC placement were

listed. These included Petitioner’s homelessness, his lack of marketable job skills, the length

of his sentence, the lack of prior history as an employee, a large Internal Revenue Service

sanction and that he did not have a driver’s license. Answer, Exhibit 1, Attachment 3. These

categories reflect that his history and characteristics were considered and are supported by

the Inmate Skills Development Plan that is also in the Petitioner’s file. 

As to the remaining factors of section 3621(b), even Petitioner recognizes their

marginal relevance to his case. Petitioner argues that an RCC facility or halfway house

should be available. Respondents have not contended otherwise. As to the nature of his

offense, Respondents have considered only the length of his sentence, and have not

suggested that the offense involved violence or that he is predisposed to act in a violent

manner. In relation to the final two factors, statements by the sentencing court and the

sentencing commission, neither side offers any information to be considered. Thus, the

BOP’s reliance on Petitioner’s history and characteristics is hardly a surprise.

The legal basis for Petitioner’s claim is the final and most important consideration in

rejecting this claim. This Court and others have previously cited a Report and

Recommendation drafted by then District of Arizona Magistrate Judge (now District Judge)

Guerin, where in a claim much like this one, she reasoned that:

The SCA does not mandate a RCC placement of 12-

months or prohibit a placement of less than 12-months. See 18

U.S.C. § 3624(c); Roman v. Berkebile, 2008 WL 4559825 at *2

n. 2 (N.D.Tex. Oct. 6, 2008) (prisoners may receive a maximum

of 12 months under the Second Chance Act, but there is no

presumptive minimum). Although Petitioner may

understandably believe that a longer RRC placement would

benefit him, a petitioner “is not entitled to a writ of habeas

Case 4:11-cv-00472-RCC-JR Document 42 Filed 03/21/12 Page 6 of 8
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

7

corpus simply because he thinks the Bureau of Prisons

misjudged his situation and made a bad decision about when he

should be transferred to an RRC.” Segovia-Reyna v. Cruz, 2009

WL 279482 (D.Minn. 2009). The SCA only requires that the

BOP consider an inmate for RRC placement; it does not

mandate that the inmate actually get such placement.

Wedelstedt v. Wiley, 477 F.3d 1160, 1168 (10th Cir.2007). In

sum, an inmate is entitled to a good faith and proper exercise of

discretion by the BOP. Rodriquez v. Smith, 2007 WL 628663

(E.D.Cal. Feb. 28, 2007), aff’d 541 F.3d 1880, 1887 (9th

Cir.2008). [The Petitioner] has failed to demonstrate that the

BOP failed to properly exercise its discretion in this matter.

Bruce v. Apker, 2009 WL 2509170 (D.Ariz. Aug. 17, 2009). As discussed above, Petitioner

has not established that the BOP filed to properly exercise its discretion in this case and the

law does not support granting him relief on this claim. 

2. Identification Assistance

In Ground Two of the Petition, but not in the accompanying Memorandum, Petitioner

argues that Respondents have failed to assist him in the acquisition of identification

documents. He also raised this issue in his Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal, noting

that the BOP had failed to follow the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 17541 “as it relates to

assisting inmates in obtaining identification.” 

The provision of section 17451 upon which Petitioner relies is mandatory, stating that

“[t]he Director shall assist prisoners in obtaining identification (including a social security

card, driver’s license or other official photo identification, or birth certificate) prior to

release.” 42 U.S.C. § 17541(b)(1). Respondents have not addressed Petitioner’s assertion

that the BOP has failed to assist him as required by this section and have left Petitioner’s

contention unrebutted. As such, the Court recommends that the Respondents and the BOP

provide Petitioner with the assistance required pursuant to the statute. 

III. Recommendation for Disposition by the District Judge

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District

Court, after its independent review, grant in part and deny in part Petitioner’s Amended

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 13) and order that Respondents assist Petitioner in

obtaining identification prior to his release. 

Case 4:11-cv-00472-RCC-JR Document 42 Filed 03/21/12 Page 7 of 8
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

8

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. 

However, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy

of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District

Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to

the objections. If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV

11-472-TUC-RCC. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination

of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo

consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003) (en banc).

DATED this 21st day of March, 2012.

Case 4:11-cv-00472-RCC-JR Document 42 Filed 03/21/12 Page 8 of 8