Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_20-cv-00109/USCOURTS-ared-2_20-cv-00109-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dewayne Hendrix
Defendant
Jeffrey Alan Nichols
Plaintiff

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

DELTA DIVISION 

JEFFREY ALAN NICHOLS PETITIONER 

Reg #32974-045 

 

VS. 2:20-CV-00109-LPR-JTR 

 

DEWAYNE HENDRIX, Warden 

FCI - Forrest City RESPONDENT 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent 

to United States District Judge Lee P. Rudofsky. You may file written objections to 

all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) 

specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be 

received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this 

Recommendation. The failure to timely file objections may result in waiver of the 

right to appeal questions of fact. 

I. Introduction 

 Petitioner Jeffrey Alan Nichols, who is currently incarcerated in the Federal 

Correctional Institution-Low in Forrest City, Arkansas, has filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Doc. 1. According to Nichols, he is 56 

years old and suffers from high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol and 

Case 2:20-cv-00109-LPR Document 3 Filed 06/12/20 Page 1 of 8
2 

chronic bronchitis. Nichols alleges that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, he meets 

the guidelines for a transfer to home confinement.1

For the following reasons, Nichols’ habeas Petition should be dismissed, 

without prejudice. 

II. Discussion 

On March 27, 2020, Congress enacted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and 

Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). See CARES Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, 

134 Stat 281. The CARES Act increases the length of time the Bureau of Prisons 

may allow a federal inmate to spend in home confinement, by providing that during 

the “emergency period [caused by the Coronavirus] . . . the maximum amount of 

time for which the Director is authorized to place a prisoner in home confinement” 

is left to the discretion of the Director of the BOP.2

 

1

 Although Nichols makes one passing reference to “compassionate release,” all the other 

allegations in his § 2241 petition address his desire to be released from the BOP to home 

confinement. 

 Compassionate release and home confinement are distinct remedies. Under § 2241, this 

Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a request for compassionate release because it seeks a 

modification of sentence that must be addressed by the sentencing court. See 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(1)(A); Smoke v. United States, No. CIV. 09-2050, 2009 WL 5030770, at *4 (D. Minn. 

Dec. 14, 2009) (a request for compassionate release must be filed as a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 

3582 in the district court that imposed the sentence). 

 If Nichols wishes to pursue a claim for compassionate release, he must file such request 

with the sentencing court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). This Recommendation only 

addresses Nichols’ § 2241 claim requesting this Court to order the BOP to transfer him to home 

confinement. 

2

 This provision of the CARES Act states: 

During the covered emergency period, if the Attorney General finds that emergency 

conditions will materially affect the functioning of the Bureau, the Director of the 

Bureau may lengthen the maximum amount of time for which the Director is 

Case 2:20-cv-00109-LPR Document 3 Filed 06/12/20 Page 2 of 8
3 

On April 3, 2020, the United States Attorney General William Barr exercised 

his emergency authority under the CARES Act by: 

[E]xpand[ing] the cohort of inmates who may be considered for home release 

[based] upon my finding that emergency conditions are materially affecting 

the functioning of the Bureau of Prisons. I hereby make that finding[.] 

See Memorandum from U.S. Attorney General William Barr to the Director of the 

BOP, Increasing Use of Home Confinement at Institutions Most Affected by COVID19 (Apr. 3, 2020).3

 Attorney General Barr directed the BOP to “move with dispatch 

in using home confinement, where appropriate, to move vulnerable inmates out of 

these institutions.” Id. 

In his habeas Petition, Nichols alleges that, because he meets the requirements 

for transfer to home confinement, this Court should order the BOP to send him home. 

Even if Nichols meets the criteria for home confinement, that fact alone does not 

establish that his constitutional rights are being violated by his continued 

incarceration in the BOP, much less that this Court has the legal authority to order 

the BOP to transfer him to home confinement. 

authorized to place a prisoner in home confinement under the first sentence of 

section 3624(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as the Director determines 

appropriate. 

CARES Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136 at § 12003(b)(2). 

 The CARES Act expands the interval of time a prisoner can now be placed in home 

confinement from “the shorter of 10 percent of the term of imprisonment of that prisoner or six 

months,” under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2), to a completely open-ended period of time, based on the 

BOP’s exercise of its discretion. 

3

 Accessible online at https://www.justice.gov/file/1266661/download. 

Case 2:20-cv-00109-LPR Document 3 Filed 06/12/20 Page 3 of 8
4 

Under well-established case law, a federal prisoner does not have a 

constitutional right to serve a sentence in any particular place. See Meachum v. 

Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-225 (1976) (“That life in one prison is much more 

disagreeable than in another does not in itself signify that a Fourteenth Amendment 

liberty interest is implicated when a prisoner is transferred to the institution with the 

more severe rules.”); Moorman v. Thalacker, 83 F.3d 970, 973 (8th Cir. 1996) 

(“[T]here is no liberty interest in assignment to any particular prison.”). Thus, absent 

truly compelling facts, it is likely to be difficult for Nichols to plead and prove that 

he has a protected liberty interest in a transfer to home confinement. 

Congress has vested the BOP with broad authority to determine where

prisoners should serve their sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (“2020 WL 2490101 

(“The Bureau of Prisons shall designate the place of the prisoner’s imprisonment, . . 

.”); 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(4) (“Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit 

or restrict the authority of the [BOP] under section 3621”). 

Before Nichols can challenge the BOP’s exercise of this authority, he must 

request the BOP to transfer him to home confinement.4

 If that request is denied, 

Nichols must then fully and completely exhaust his administrative remedies within 

4

 “A prisoner may bring a habeas action challenging the BOP’s execution of his sentence 

only if he first presents his claim to the BOP.” Mathena v. United States, 577 F.3d 943 (8th Cir. 

2009) (citing United States v. Chappel, 208 F.3d 1069, 1069 (8th Cir. 2000)). 

Case 2:20-cv-00109-LPR Document 3 Filed 06/12/20 Page 4 of 8
5 

the BOP.5

 Here, Nichols does not even allege that he has requested the BOP to 

transfer him to home confinement, much less that he has completed exhausting the 

BOP’s administrative review process. Thus, it seems Nichols may be using this § 

2241 habeas action to request the Court, as a matter of first impression, to transfer 

him to home confinement, and completely bypass the BOP’s exercise of its express 

statutory authority over prisoner placement. 

Nothing in the CARES Act or Attorney General Barr’s Memo diminishes the 

BOP’s placement authority or a prisoner’s legal obligation to challenge and 

administratively exhaust the BOP’s allegedly improper exercise of that authority 

before initiating a § 2241 habeas claim that the BOP’s decision violated the 

prisoner’s constitutional rights. See United States v. Walker, No. 

CR16331DWFLIB, 2020 WL 2490101, at *2 (D. Minn. May 14, 2020) (“Neither 

the CARES Act nor the FSA [First Step Act] alters” the BOP’s exclusive authority 

to determine the placement of prisoners.”); United States v. James, Cr. No. 15-255 

(SRN) 2020 WL 1922568 at *2 (D. Minn. Apr 21, 2020) (“the BOP has exclusive 

authority to determine the placement of prisoners.”); see also United States v. Kluge, 

No. 17-cr-61 (DWF), 2020 WL 209287 at *3 (D. Minn. Jan 14, 2020) (“Nothing in 

5

 Administrative exhaustion “means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so 

properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits).” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 

90 (2006) (internal citations omitted). See also BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program, 28 C.F.R. 

§ 542.10 et seq. (June 2020). 

Case 2:20-cv-00109-LPR Document 3 Filed 06/12/20 Page 5 of 8
6 

the statutes amended by the FSA permits the Court to place Defendant in home 

confinement. Under the FSA, the authority to place a prisoner remains with the 

BOP.”); Xiao v. La Tuna Fed. Corr. Inst., Civ. No. EP-19-97-KC, 2019 WL 

1472889, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2019) (“The Attorney General - and by delegation 

the BOP - has the exclusive authority and discretion to designate the place of an 

inmate’s confinement.”). 

Thus, even if I were to assume that Nichols has properly made a request for 

transfer with the BOP and fully exhausted the BOP’s adverse decision on that matter, 

it would be questionable whether the BOP’s transfer decision would be reviewable 

at all by this Court. In Porche v. Salazar, 2019 WL 1373683, *1 (D. Ore. March 5, 

2019), the court rejected a habeas petitioner’s challenge to the BOP’s denial of a 

transfer request, finding that the BOP’s placement decision was not reviewable. The 

court based its ruling on language added to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), as part of the First 

Step Act of 2018,6

 specifying that the BOP’s “‘designation of a place of 

imprisonment . . . is not reviewable by any court.’” Id. (quoting § 3621(b)). 

6

 Enacted into law on December 21, 2018, the First Step Act amended various statutes, 

including 18 U.S.C. § 3621, which governs the BOP’s overarching authority to determine the place 

where prisoners will serve their sentence, and 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c), which addresses prerelease 

custody, including home confinement. See First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat 5194. 

Thus, in § 2241 habeas actions brought by prisoners challenging the BOP’s decision to deny a 

requested transfer to home confinement, district courts must first carefully consider whether the 

BOP’s decision is even reviewable based on the unconditional nature of the language added to § 

3621(b). 

Case 2:20-cv-00109-LPR Document 3 Filed 06/12/20 Page 6 of 8
7 

Finally, even if this Court had the authority to review the BOP’s final decision 

denying Nichols’ request for home confinement, for Nichols to state a viable due 

process claim he would likely be required to allege that the BOP’s decision went 

beyond merely being wrong and met the much higher bar of not being made “in good 

faith.” See Miller v. Whitehead, 527 F.3d 752, 758 (8th Cir. 2008) (finding that 

inmates who challenged the denial of their request for immediate transfer to a 

halfway house failed to present any evidence “the warden acted in other than good 

faith when he concluded that immediate RRC placement was not appropriate.”). 

III. Conclusion 

 On its face, Nichols’s § 2241 habeas petition fails to establish that he has 

exhausted his administrative remedies within the BOP, a prerequisite that must be 

satisfied, absent futility, before this Court can exercise jurisdiction over his claim. 

Additionally, the allegations in Nichol’s habeas petition are so vague that it is 

impossible to determine if the BOP has even been given an opportunity to address 

his request for transfer to home confinement, much less that, in denying his request, 

the BOP has not acted in good faith; thereby implicating a due process “liberty 

interest” in home confinement sufficient to state a viable constitutional claim under 

§ 2241. 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT the Court dismiss this habeas 

action, without prejudice. 

Case 2:20-cv-00109-LPR Document 3 Filed 06/12/20 Page 7 of 8
8 

 DATED this 12th day of June, 2020. 

 ___________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:20-cv-00109-LPR Document 3 Filed 06/12/20 Page 8 of 8