Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_05-cv-00243/USCOURTS-ared-2_05-cv-00243-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Linda Sanders
Defendant
Demico Trevoy Smith
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EASTERN DIVISION

DEMICO TREVOY SMITH PETITIONER

v. NO. 2:05CV00243 HDY

LINDA SANDERS, Warden, FCI RESPONDENT

Forrest City, Arkansas

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BACKGROUND. It is not clear when petitioner Demico Trevoy Smith (“Smith”) first

entered the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). He represents, and the

Court accepts as true, that he came to be incarcerated at FCI Forrest City in Forrest

City, Arkansas, following “his conviction for violating the terms of his [s]upervised

[r]elease.” See Document 1 at 2.

FEDERAL COURT SUBMISSIONS. In August of 2005, Smith commenced the

proceeding at bar by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

2241. He alleged the following in his petition:

Petitioner is [tentatively] scheduled for transfer to a CCC on

February 2, 2006, which is only three and one half months from his

maximum release date of May 21, 2006. Petitioner has, however,

requested that he be permitted to spend additional time in a CCC, citing

his individual needs and circumstances, and stating that he require[s]

additional CCC placement time. ...

Case 2:05-cv-00243-HDY Document 9 Filed 10/27/05 Page 1 of 7
-2-

Respondent has denied his request citing a new Bureau of Prisons

policy ... which took effect on February 15, 2005, whereas, prisoner[]s will

only be permitted to serve the final ten [percent] (10%) of their sentences

in a CCC, without regard to their needs and individual circumstances.

See Document 1 at 2-3. Smith maintained that the new BOP policy is invalid and

otherwise violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. He sought

the following relief: “to invalidate the ... policy and to direct respondent to consider in

good faith placing him in a CCC for the final [six] months of his sentence, and in any

event, to bar the retroactive application [of] the new policy to him ...” See Document

1 at 9.

Respondent Linda Sanders (“Sanders”) thereafter filed an answer to Smith’s

petition. She maintained that he failed to state a claim for relief because he has no

constitutional right to a place of incarceration. She also maintained that he failed to

state a claim for relief because the new BOP community corrections center (“CCC”)

placement policy is consistent with the relevant statutes and case law and is a

permissible interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 3621(b) and 18 U.S.C. 3624(c).

Smith subsequently filed a reply and supplemental reply to Sanders’ submission.

He again maintained that the BOP should be directed to “place [him] in a CCC for a

period of not less than six months at the conclusion of his sentence.” See Document 5

at 9. He joined those submissions with the pending motion for expedited disposition.

See Document 5.

Case 2:05-cv-00243-HDY Document 9 Filed 10/27/05 Page 2 of 7
-3-

PRELIMINARY MATTERS. Before addressing Smith’s petition, the Court makes note

of two preliminary matters. First, he is challenging the BOP’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C.

3624(c) and, in turn, the decision of the BOP to delay his entry into a CCC. The Court

is convinced that his challenge involves a challenge to the execution of his sentence.

He has therefore properly filed his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241.

Second, a prisoner is typically required to exhaust his administrative remedies

before filing a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. See United States v. Chappel, 208

F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2000). The requirement is capable of being waived, though, when a

prisoner can show that attempting to exhaust would be futile. The Court finds that

requiring Smith to exhaust his administrative remedies would be futile. Specifically, the

BOP has taken a clear, consistent, and widespread stand against the position advocated

by Smith.

BOP POLICY CHANGES AND RESULTING LITIGATION. The proceeding at bar is best

understood when placed in a larger context, a context that involves at least two changes

to the BOP’s CCC placement policy. Prior to December of 2002, the BOP had a policy of

“allowing [a] prisoner[] to serve [the] last six months of incarceration in a CCC regardless

of what percent of the sentence this six months comprised.” See Elwood v. Jeter, 386

F.3d 842, 844 (8th Cir. 2004). This policy was particularly favorable to a prisoner with a

relatively short sentence because the policy allowed the prisoner to serve a significant

portion of his sentence in a CCC.

Case 2:05-cv-00243-HDY Document 9 Filed 10/27/05 Page 3 of 7
-4-

In December of 2002, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Council (“OLC”)

issued a memorandum opinion that provided, in part, the following: “[w]hen [a prisoner]

has received a sentence of imprisonment, the [BOP] does not have general authority ...

to place such [prisoner] in community confinement at the outset of his sentence or to

transfer him from prison to community confinement at any time [the] BOP chooses

during the course of his sentence.” See Cohn v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2004 WL

240570 at 1 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). “[The] OLC [therefore] concluded that [the] BOP could no

longer place [a prisoner] in [a CCC] to satisfy a prison term, except that, pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3624(c), [the] BOP could do so at the end of [a prisoner’s] sentence for the

lesser of (i) the last ten percent of the sentence or (ii) six months.” See Cato v.

Menifee, 2003 WL 22725524 at 1 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [Emphasis in original]. Shortly

thereafter, the BOP announced that it would adhere to the OLC’s memorandum opinion.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit addressed the BOP’s

adoption of the OLC’s memorandum opinion in Elwood v. Jeter, 386 F.3d 842 (8th Cir.

2004). In that decision, the Court of Appeals determined that the OLC’s memorandum

opinion was erroneous and that the BOP has the discretion to place a prisoner in a CCC

at any time during his incarceration. The Court of Appeals determined that the BOP is

not limited by the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3624(c); instead, that statute imposes a duty

on the BOP to take steps to facilitate a prisoner’s re-entry into the outside world. That

duty, though, was not to extend beyond the last six months of the prisoner’s sentence.

Case 2:05-cv-00243-HDY Document 9 Filed 10/27/05 Page 4 of 7
-5-

In response to Elwood v. Jeter, the BOP adopted a new CCC placement policy on

February 14, 2005 (“the February 14, 2005, policy”). The relevant portions of the

February 14, 2005, policy provided as follows:

570.20. What is the purpose of this subpart?

(a) This subpart provides the Bureau of Prisons' (Bureau) categorical

exercise of discretion for designating inmates to community confinement.

The Bureau designates inmates to community confinement only as part of

pre-release custody and programming which will afford the prisoner a

reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for re-entry into the

community.

(b) As discussed in this subpart, the term "community confinement"

includes Community Corrections Centers (CCC) (also known as "halfway

houses") and home confinement.

570.21. When will the Bureau designate inmates to community

confinement?

(a) The Bureau will designate inmates to community confinement

only as part of pre-release custody and programming, during the last ten

percent of the prison sentence being served, not to exceed six months.

(b) We may exceed these time-frames only when specific Bureau

programs allow greater periods of community confinement, as provided by

separate statutory authority ...

The BOP thus acknowledged in the policy that it had the discretion to place a prisoner

in a CCC prior to the last ten percent of the sentence being served. The policy reflects,

however, that the BOP would exercise its discretion, in advance, by limiting CCC

confinement in every instance to the last ten percent of the sentence being served.

Case 2:05-cv-00243-HDY Document 9 Filed 10/27/05 Page 5 of 7
1

In light of the fact that the petition has been granted, there is no need to address any of Smith’s

remaining arguments.

-6-

The February 14, 2005, policy spawned much litigation, including much litigation

within this district. In July of 2005, United States District Judge George Howard, Jr.,

addressed a challenge to the policy in Fults v. Sanders, 2:05CV00091. He found that the

policy was invalid because although it purported to be a “categorical exercise of

discretion,” it was actually not. “It merely repackaged the December 2002 blanket rule

that was rejected in Elwood.” See Fults v. Sanders, 2:05CV00091, Document 6 at 8.

The Court has also had several occasions to address the February 14, 2005, policy.

In every instance, the Court has followed Judge Howard’s lead and found that the policy

is invalid. The Court will do likewise in this proceeding.

CONCLUSION AND REMEDY. Given the foregoing, the Court finds that the February

14, 2005, policy is invalid. Smith’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted. Sanders

is ordered to: (1) consider, within twenty days and in good faith, transferring Smith to

a CCC for the last six months of his sentence in accordance with the factors taken into

account by the BOP prior to the adoption of the OLC’s December of 2002 memorandum

opinion; and (2) place Smith in conditions that will afford him a reasonable opportunity

to adjust to, and prepare for, his re-entry into the community during a reasonable part

of the last ten percent of his terms, to the extent practicable, not to exceed six

months.1

 His motion for expedited disposition is denied.

Case 2:05-cv-00243-HDY Document 9 Filed 10/27/05 Page 6 of 7
-7-

IT IS SO ORDERED this __27___ day of October, 2005.

___________________________________________

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00243-HDY Document 9 Filed 10/27/05 Page 7 of 7