Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_05-cv-00278/USCOURTS-ared-2_05-cv-00278-0/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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EASTERN DIVISION

LEONARD L. JOHNSON PETITIONER

vs. Civil Case No. 2:05CV00278 HLJ

LINDA SANDERS, Warden, 

FCI, Forrest City, Arkansas RESPONDENT

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United

States District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright. Any party may serve

and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections

should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for

the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding,

specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports

your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be

received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no

later than eleven (11) days from the date of the findings and

recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party.

Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right

to appeal questions of fact.

If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to

submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing

for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at the same

time that you file your written objections, include the following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is

inadequate.

Case 2:05-cv-00278-SWW Document 8 Filed 01/18/06 Page 1 of 6
2

2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the

District Judge (if such a hearing is granted) was

not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate

Judge. 

3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced

at the hearing before the District Judge in the form

of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of

any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence

desired to be introduced at the hearing before the

District Judge.

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity

for an additional evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate

Judge or before the District Judge.

Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:

Clerk, United States District Court

Eastern District of Arkansas

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 402

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

DISPOSITION

Now before the court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Leonard L. Johnson, an inmate of the

Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Forrest City, Arkansas,

serving a sentence of forty-eight months from an undisclosed

jurisdiction, for drug trafficking. Petitioner does not challenge

his conviction or his sentence. His only request for relief in this

petition is for an order directing the Bureau of Prisons to

“consider, in good faith, transferring [him] to a CCC for a period of

six months.” Although Petitioner’s allegations and assertions are

sparse at best, it is clear to this court that he is attempting to

Case 2:05-cv-00278-SWW Document 8 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 6
1 That statute provides as follows:

c) Pre-release custody.--The Bureau of Prisons shall, to

the extent practicable, assure that a prisoner serving a

term of imprisonment spends a reasonable part, not to

exceed six months, of the last 10 per centum of the term

to be served under conditions that will afford the prisoner

a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the

prisoner's re-entry into the community. The authority

provided by this subsection may be used to place a prisoner

in home confinement. The United States Probation System

shall, to the extent practicable, offer assistance to a

prisoner during such pre-release custody.

2 As a district court recently observed, there is a 

a growing split of authority in the federal district courts

about the validity of the February 2005 rule. Some courts

have invalidated the new regulation on the ground that it

disregards the factors set forth in § 3621(b), and

3

challenge the Bureau’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c),1 the

statute that governs the transfer of inmates to community

correctional centers (CCC’s) prior to their release from

imprisonment. This is one of several cases before this court,

challenging the BOP’s actions, containing the same response from the

Respondent. This court has addressed this issue in Jones v. Sanders,

NO. 2:05CV00047 (E.D.Ark.June 7, 2005), and Mayers v. Sanders, NO.

2:05CV00055 (E.D.Ark.June 7, 2005). In addition, Proposed Findings

and Recommendations by this court regarding this issue have been

adopted by the Hon. George Howard, Jr., in Fults v. Sanders, NO.

2:05CV00091 (E.D.Ark. July 22, 2005), and by the Hon. J. Leon Holmes

in Rodriquez v. Sanders, NO. 2:05CV00067 (E.D.Ark. Aug. 30, 2005).

Respondent filed a notice of appeal on September 13, 2005, in Fults

v. Sanders, USCA Case No. 05-3490.2 

Case 2:05-cv-00278-SWW Document 8 Filed 01/18/06 Page 3 of 6
therefore suffers from the same infirmities as the December

2002 policy. See, e.g., Baker v. Willingham,

No.3:04CV1923(PCD), 2005 WL 2276040 (D.Conn. Sep. 19,

2005); Wiederhorn v. Gonzales, No. 05-360, 2005 WL 1113833

(D.Or. May 9, 2005); Pimentel v. Gonzalez, 367 F.Supp.2d

365 (E.D.N.Y.2005); Paige v. United States, 369 F.Supp.2d

1257 (D.Mont.2005); Cook v. Gonzales, No. 05-09, 2005 WL

773956 (D.Or. April 5, 2005); Drew v. Menifee, No. 04-9944,

2005 WL 525449 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2005). But a fairly equal

number of courts have ruled to the contrary, concluding

that the February 2005 policy reasonably interprets the

enabling statute, § 3621(b), and therefore, is valid. See

Charboneau v. Menifee, 05 Civ.1900(MSM), 2005 WL 2385862

(S.D.N .Y. Sep. 28, 2005); Lee v. United States, No.Civ.A.

04-0610-CG-C, 2005 WL 2179796 (S.D.Ala. Sep. 6, 2005);

Hurley v. Sherrod, No.Civ.A.05CV0117LTBPAC, 2005 WL 2141490

(D.Colo. Sep. 1, 2005); Troy v. Apker, 05 Civ. 1306(GEL),

2005 WL 1661101 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2005) (finding that the

BOP has the authority to categorically exercise its

discretion regarding CCC transfers and upholding the

validity of the February 2005 rule); Moss, 376 F.Supp.2d

416 (same); Yip, 363 F.Supp.2d 548 (same); Levine v.

Menifee, 05 Civ.1902(RCC), 2005 WL 1384021 (S.D.N.Y. June

9, 2005) (same); Levine v. Apker, 05 CV 3472(CLB), 2005 WL

1417134 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2005) (finding "no Constitutional

infirmity in the exercise of categorical discretion under

the circumstances where the statute calls for

individualized consideration"). See also Wiesel v. Menifee,

No. 04 Civ. 9681(DAB), 2005 WL 1036297 (S.D.N.Y. May 2,

2005) (upholding the February 2005 regulations, but finding

their application to petitioner, who was convicted prior

to the policy change, to be a violation of the Ex Post

Facto Clause). 

Harris v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2005 WL 2562970, *8 (D.N.J.

October 6, 2005).

4

The court need not set forth in detail its reasoning as to the

issues decided in the above cases. The court rejected Respondent’s

argument that continued limitations on transfers to CCCs under a new

regulation that went into effect on February 14, 2005, at 28 C.F.R.

§ 570, are a “categorical exercise” of its discretion and do not

conflict with Elwood v. Jeter, 386 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2004). Instead,

Case 2:05-cv-00278-SWW Document 8 Filed 01/18/06 Page 4 of 6
5

this court agreed with a recent decision from the Eastern District of

New York, which found this new regulation “in no way furthers or

interprets” the factors set forth in § 3621(b) that were intended to

inform the BOP's decision-making with regard to CCC placement.

Pimentel v. Gonzalez, 367 F.Supp.2d 365, 374-75 (E.D.N.Y May 3,

2005). This court concluded that, although the BOP labeled the rule

a “categorical exercise of discretion” it did not exercise its

discretion at all, but merely re-packaged the December 2002 blanket

rule that was rejected in Elwood. 

As the court in Elwood explained, although the language of §

3624(c) does not mandate the BOP place any certain inmate in a CCC

prior to his release, it bestows a duty on the BOP to ensure each

inmate “spends a reasonable part of the last ten percent of his or

her term ‘under conditions that afford the prisoner a reasonable

opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the prisoner's re-entry into

the community’ to the extent that this is practicable.” Elwood v.

Jeter, 386 F.3d at 846. This court concluded that, although the BOP

labeled the rule a “categorical exercise of discretion” it did not

exercise its discretion at all, but merely re-packaged the December

2002 blanket rule that was rejected in Elwood. The court adopts the

reasoning in its previous orders and recommendations and finds the

Petitioner is entitled to relief.

This court is aware that the court in Elwood did not rule the

petitioner had a right to be transferred to a CCC. It merely ruled

Case 2:05-cv-00278-SWW Document 8 Filed 01/18/06 Page 5 of 6
6

he had a right to be considered for such a transfer in accordance

with the factors taken into account by the BOP prior to its adoption

of the December 2002 policy. In addition, Respondent states

Petitioner’s projected release date is in August of 2007, and the

Bureau has not made a determination regarding a CCC recommendation

for Petitioner as yet, and will not do so until he is eleven to

thirteen months from release. Respondent does not argue that the

issues are not ripe. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this petition be, and it is hereby,

granted. Respondent is directed to (a) consider, at an appropriate

time and in good faith, transferring Petitioner to a CCC for the last

six months of his sentence in accordance with the factors taken into

account by the BOP prior to its adoption of the December 2002 policy;

and (b) placing Petitioner in conditions that will afford him a

reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for his reentry into

the community during a reasonable part of the last ten percent of his

term, to the extent practicable, not to exceed six months.

SO ORDERED this 18th day of January, 2006.

 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00278-SWW Document 8 Filed 01/18/06 Page 6 of 6