N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SHANE AAR ON AB B OTT, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. FEDER AL B U REAU OF PR ISONS; J.E. THOM AS, W arde n, R

e sponde n t s - Appe lle e s . No. 12-35801 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-01047-M O
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M i c ha e l W . M osm a

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 26, 2014 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : WARDLAW , GOULD, a n d C HR ISTEN, C i rc u it Judge s. In 2011, Pe titione r Shane Abbott (“ Abbott” ) sought a c c e p t anc e into the R e side ntia l Drug AbuseProgram (“ RDAP” ) run by

the B ure a

u of Prisons (“ B OP” )
and wa s de nie d, ba se d on a 2009 B OP rule tha t pre c lude d

prisone rs with outsta nding wa rran ts from

RDAP e ligibility . He file d a pe tition for a

writ of 

# FIL ED
OCT 10 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.ha

be a s c orpus se e k ing to c om pe l the B OP to a llow him into R DAP, whic h wa s de nie d by the distric t

c ourt. He a

ppe a le d tha

t de c ision in 2012. While Abbott’ s 2012 a

ppe a l wa s pe nding, theB OP c ha nge d its mind a

bout prope r proc e dure and c ha nge d its c ourse . The B OP disc ove re d inte rna l guida nc e that , a long with the

qua shing of oneof Abbott’ s wa rrants, re sulte d

in a ne w re vie w pursua nt to whic h the B OP de te rm i ne d tha t Abbott wa s e ligibleto pa rtic ipate in RDAP. B ut the B O P a lso c onc lude d tha t Abbott wa s not e ligibleto re c e ive RDAP’ s e arly re le a se inc e ntive of a se nte nc e re d

uc tion, be c a

use of his prior M onta na c onvic tion for unla

wful re stra int. B O P de te rm ine d tha t the M onta

na unla wful re stra int c onvic tion wa s e quiva le n t to “ kidna ping,” ba rring his e l igibility unde r 28 C .F.R
. § 550.55(b)(4). W e re m ande d this c a s e to the distric t c ourt for the lim ite d purpose of de te rm i ning Abbott’ s e ligibility for RDAP’ s se n te nc e re duc tion. Upon re m and, the d istric t c o urt he l d tha

t it la c ke d jurisdic tion to re v i e w Abbott’ s c ha lle nge to his de nia l of e ligibility

for se nte nc e re duc tion on the ground tha

t the B OP's de c ision
wa s a n individualiz e d e arly

re le a se de t e rm inat ion, a s oppose d to a c ate g oric a l
c ha lle nge . Abbott now a

ppe a ls tha

t de c ision, re ne wing the argum e nts pre se nte d in his origina l ha

be a s pe tition a

n d ra ising two a dditiona l c onte ntions: 1) tha t the distric t -2-c ourt e rre d in holding tha t it la c ke d jurisdic tion; a

nd 2) tha t the B OP’ s inte rpre tation of 28 C .F.R . § 550.55(b)(4) to pre c lude his e ligibility for a se n te nc e
re duc t ion wa s arbitra

ry and c a pric i ous. The c la im s pre se nte d in Abbott’ s initia l ha be a s pe t ition re ga

rding the le ga lity of the B OP’ s 2009 R D AP e ligibility

rule , re ne we d in this a

ppe a l, a re
re nde re d m oot by

the B OP’ s de c ision to a dm it him to the RDAP progra m . Abbott ha s re c e ive d a ll the re lie f sought in his origina l pe tition: R

DAP pa rtic ipation,
e ligibility for pla c e m e nt in a

ha lfwa y house progra

m , a nd c onside ra tion for e arly
re le a se . Although he wa s unsuc c e ssful in ge tting a se nte n c e re duc tion, he wa s
a c c e pte d a s a pa rtic ipa nt in R DAP and wa s not pre c lude d from c onside ration of
suc h e l igibility . Abbott re ta ins no “ le g a lly c ogniz a ble inte re st for whic h the c ourts
c an gra nt a re m e dy .” Alask

a C t r. for the Env ’t v . U.S. Fore st Se rv . , 189 F.3d 851, 854 (9th C i r. 1999). The re fore , Abbott’ s initia l a nd re ne we d a

ppe a l a s to the B OP’ s 2009 R

D AP e ligibility

rule is dismisse d a s m oot. Turning to Abbott’ s a

ppe a l of the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision on lim ite d
re m and, the c ourt e rre d whe n it he ld tha t it la c ke d jurisdic tion to re vie w Abbott’ s
c ha lle nge . It is true that the B OP ha s broa d, unre vie wa ble disc re tion ove r individualiz e d

de c isions re ga

rding R DAP e ligibility
. Se e Re e b v . Thomas , 636 F.3d 1224, 1227–28 (9th C i r. 2011). B ut he re Abbott m ake s a c ate goric a l -3-c ha lle nge to the B OP’ s inte rpre tation of its own re gula tion, whic h is not fore c lose d from re vie w. C

f. C lose v . Thomas , 653 F.3d 970, 974 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ The se pe titions alle ge tha

t the ‘ B OP a c tion is c ontra ry to . . . its sta

tutory a uthority .’ The re fore , the pe titions a

re within [our] jurisdic tion.” (c ita tion omitte d )). W e ne xt a

nd fina lly a ddre ss whe the r Abbott’ s prior c onvic tion for unla wful
re stra i nt, a s c odifie d in M onta na C o de Annota

t e d § 45-5-301, is e quiva le n t to kidna p ing unde r 28 C .F.R . § 550.55(b)(4). W e c onc lude tha t the M onta

n a unla wful re stra int e le m e nts a

re not e quiva l e nt to kidna ping. TheB OP’ s c onfla

tion of the two wa s a

rbitra ry and c a p ric ious. W e hav e pre v iously e xpla ine d tha

t the offe nse s liste d in 28 C .F.R . § 550.55(b)(4) (homic i de , forc ible ra p e , robbe ry , a ggrav at e d a ssa

ult, a rson, kidna

ping, a nd se x u a l a

buse offe nse s c o m

m itte d on
m inors) a re an a ppropria te ba r to e arly re le a se be c a

u se the i r c om

m ission

“ ra tiona lly

re fle c ts the vie wtha

t suc h inm ate s displa

y e d re a dine s s to e nda

nge r the public .” Pe c k

v . Thomas , 697 F.3d 767, 773 (9th C ir. 2012). M onta na la w, howe v e r, doe s not vie w unla wful re stra int simila

rly , de sc ribing theoffe nse a s “ the lowe st form

of inte rfe re nc e with thelibe rty of a n othe r.” M ont. C ode Ann. § 45-5- 301 (Annota

tor’ s Note to § 45-5-301). Further, unla wful re s tra int is a le

sse r inc lude d offe nse of kidna

pping unde r M onta

n a la w . Se e State v . Brumme r , 287 M ont. 168, 177 (1998). The B OP ha s not shown a

re a s ona b le ba sis to e x te nd a -4-re gula

tion involving a

se t of se rious a

n d viole nt c rim e s, a ll of whic h show

“ re a dine ss to e nda

nge r the public ,” Pe c k, 697 F.3d a t 773, to unla

wful re s tra int in viola tion of M o n ta

na la w, whic h we c onside r to be a c rim e le ss se rious a

nd le ss viole nt tha

n those liste d. W e hold tha t B O P’ s inte rpre tive a c tion is inva l id. Se e Arrington v . Danie ls , 516 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th C ir. 2008)

. W e c onc lude tha

t Abbott wa s e ligiblefor e arly re le a se unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3621(e )(2)(B ). Abbott ha s a lre a dy be e n re le a se d from

prison a nd c an no longe r be ne fit from

a se nte nc e re duc tion, but he still c ould be ne fit from a re duc tion in his te rm of supe rvise d re le a s e . Se e Re y nolds v . Thomas , 603 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th C i r. 2010), abrogate d on othe r grounds by Se ste r v . Unite d State

s , 132 S. C t. 1463 (2012). W e think it is le ga lly pe rm issibleand se rve s the e nds of justic e and fa irne s s for us to re m and to the distric t c ourt for it to c o nside r in the first insta nc e whe the r m odific ation of Abbott’ s te rm of supe rvise d re le a se is now a ppropria te in light of B OP’ s prior unla

wful de nia l of Abbott’ s e ligibility for se nte nc e re duc tion. DISM I SSE D, RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D w ith instr uc tions.

-5-