Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_06-cv-00072/USCOURTS-ared-2_06-cv-00072-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Crawford
Plaintiff
Linda Sanders
Defendant

Document Text:

1

 These facilities were formerly known as community

correctional centers (CCCs), but the BOP renamed them on March 31,

2006.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD CRAWFORD PETITIONER

vs. Civil Case No. 2:06CV00072 HLJ

LINDA SANDERS, Warden, 

FCI, Forrest City, Arkansas RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This is one of several cases litigated before this court

concerning the BOP’s transfer of inmates to residential reentry

centers (RRCs).1 The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled

in Fults v. Sanders, 442 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir. 2006), that a

regulation adopted by the BOP on December 14, 2005, which limited

placement in an RRC to the last ten percent of an inmate’s sentence,

was invalid. In light of Fults, Respondent has filed a pleading in

this case stating the BOP is modifying its procedures for

institutions in this circuit, and that Petitioner will be evaluated

for RRC placement utilizing the procedures outlined in Program

Statement 7310.04, Community Corrections Center Utilization and

Transfer Procedure, dated December 16, 1998. Respondent further

states that, under this policy statement, the Bureau “will be basing

RRC recommendations on statutory (18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)),

correctional, and population management interests, e.g., length of

Case 2:06-cv-00072-HLJ Document 9 Filed 06/13/06 Page 1 of 2
2

sentence, seriousness of current offense, criminal history,

programming needs of the inmate, availability of facilities,

availability of necessary healthcare, public safety, etc. Consistent

with Program Statement 7310.04, recommendations regarding RRC

placement will occur 11 to 13 months before the inmate’s projected

release date.” Respondent requests this petition, therefore, be

dismissed as moot.

Petitioner requests the court enter a judgment, because he “may

need one ... to receive the six months halfway house” transfer,

“until the Respondent has shown, in good faith, that the procedures

outlined in Program Statement 7310.04, ... will be utilized

correctly....” Petitioner does not have a right to a transfer to

an RRC, and at no point in the Fults litigation has any court

directed the BOP to transfer a specific inmate to an RRC. All

Petitioner is entitled to is consideration for such a transfer in

accordance with the procedures outlined in Program Statement

7310.04. Respondent has agreed to do that, and it appears this

petition is moot. See Ali v. Cangemi 419 F.3d 722, 723 -724 (8th

Cir. 2005). 

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

hereby, dismissed without prejudice as moot.

SO ORDERED this 13th day of June, 2006.

 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00072-HLJ Document 9 Filed 06/13/06 Page 2 of 2