Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_06-cv-00128/USCOURTS-ared-2_06-cv-00128-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edward Lee Carter
Plaintiff
Linda Sanders
Defendant

Document Text:

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EASTERN DIVISION

EDWARD LEE CARTER PETITIONER

vs. Civil Case No. 2:06CV00128 HLJ

LINDA SANDERS, Warden, 

FCI, Forrest City, Arkansas RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Edward Lee Carter, an inmate of the

Federal Correctional Institution in Forrest City, Arkansas.

Petitioner is serving a twenty-one month sentence of imprisonment

imposed in the United States District Court for the Western

District of Arkansas pursuant to his conviction in February of 2006

on the charge of conspiracy to distribute marijuana. He does not

challenge his conviction or his sentence in these proceedings. His

sole claim in this petition is his challenge to the Bureau of

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

Case 2:06-cv-00128-HLJ Document 10 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 4
2 These facilities were formerly known as community

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

2006.

3 That statute provides as follows:

(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 meets 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 of 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.

In designating the place of imprisonment or making

transfers under this subsection, there shall be no

favoritism given to prisoners of high social or economic

status. The Bureau may at any time, having regard for the

same matters, direct the transfer of a prisoner from one

penal or correctional facility to another. The Bureau

2

statute that governs the transfer of inmates to residential reentry

centers (RRC’s)2 before their release from imprisonment, and 18

U.S.C. § 3621(b),3 the statute that gives the BOP the general power

Case 2:06-cv-00128-HLJ Document 10 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 4
shall make available appropriate substance abuse

treatment for each prisoner the Bureau determines has a

treatable condition of substance addiction or abuse.

3

to designate where a prisoner is housed during his term of

imprisonment. 

This is one of several cases litigated before this court

concerning the BOP’s transfer of inmates to RRCs. 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 in

February of 2005 that 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 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,

Case 2:06-cv-00128-HLJ Document 10 Filed 07/31/06 Page 3 of 4
4

recommendations regarding RRC placement will occur 11 to 13 months

before the inmate’s projected release date.” Respondent argues

this petition, therefore, should be dismissed as moot. The court

is not convinced the petition is moot at this point. 

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

hereby, granted. In accordance with Fults, Respondent is ordered

to consider Petitioner for transfer 11 to 13 months before his

projected release date, utilizing the procedures outlined in

Program Statement 7310.04, dated December 16, 1998, basing its

CCC/RRC recommendations on the factors in § 3621(b). 

SO ORDERED this 31st day of July, 2006.

 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00128-HLJ Document 10 Filed 07/31/06 Page 4 of 4