Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_05-cv-00335/USCOURTS-ared-2_05-cv-00335-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Linda Sanders
Defendant
Jerry Sims
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EASTERN DIVISION

JERRY SIMS PETITIONER

vs. Civil Case No. 2:05CV00335 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 J. Leon Holmes. 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:

Case 2:05-cv-00335-JLH Document 9 Filed 02/23/06 Page 1 of 6
1 That statute provides as follows:

2

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is

inadequate.

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 Jerry Sims, an inmate of the Federal

Correctional Institution (FCI) in Forrest City, Arkansas, who is

serving a twenty-four month sentence from the United States District

Court for the Western District of Tennessee, for felon in possession

of a firearm. Petitioner does not challenge his conviction or his

sentence. His only claim in this petition is his challenge to the

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

Case 2:05-cv-00335-JLH Document 9 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 6
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 §

3

statute that governs the transfer of inmates to community

correctional centers (CCCs) prior to their release from imprisonment.

He contends he is entitled to serve the last six months of his

sentence in a CCC, but states he is tentatively scheduled to be

transferred to a CCC only during the last ninety days of his

sentence. 

This is one of several cases before this court addressing such

transfers. See 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 were 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-00335-JLH Document 9 Filed 02/23/06 Page 3 of 6
3621(b), and 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

In these 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, this court

agreed with a recent decision from the Eastern District of New York,

Case 2:05-cv-00335-JLH Document 9 Filed 02/23/06 Page 4 of 6
5

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. 

In the present case, Respondent has raised the additional

“factor” that Petitioner “failed” the required Drug Education

Program. Petitioner contends he “withdrew” from the program because

of health problems caused by a previous stroke. Respondent has made

no specific argument based on this “factor,” and the court will not

attempt to guess at her intent as to its inclusion in her brief. The

court need not consider Petitioner’s failure to complete the program,

because these cases do not dictate the final outcome of the transfer

question for any of the petitioners. As the court has stated in each

of its opinions, the court in Elwood did not rule the petitioner had

a right to be transferred to a CCC. It merely ruled 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. It appears that persons who receive a transfer

ordinarily have completed the drug program, and it is a factor the

Bureau considers in making the final decision, but it does not appear

the failure to complete the program is an absolute bar to a CCC

Case 2:05-cv-00335-JLH Document 9 Filed 02/23/06 Page 5 of 6
6

transfer. Until Respondent makes a specific argument regarding a

petitioner’s failure to complete the program, the court must regard

it as irrelevant to its decision.

The court adopts the reasoning in its previous orders and

recommendations and finds the Petitioner in this case is entitled to

relief.

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

granted. Respondent is directed to (a) consider, prior to six months

before the end of Petitioner’s sentence 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 23rd day of February, 2006.

 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00335-JLH Document 9 Filed 02/23/06 Page 6 of 6