NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0144n.06 No. 09-1864 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
REN NE LPI TT S, Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla

nt,
v. C. ZY CH, Respondent-Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

B e fo re : B AT CH EL DE R, C hie f Jud g e ; CLAY and SUT TO N, Cir c uit

Judg e s.
SUT TO N, Cir c uit

Judg e . Renne l Pitts, an inma te a t th e F e de ra l Co rr e c tio na l Ins tit uti on in Mil an, Mic hig an, c ha lle ng e s th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt d eny ingha be a s r e lie f. B e c a

us e his
c ha lle ng e is no t y e t ri pe , w e va c a te the jud g me nt a nd re mand the c a se wi th i ns tr

uc tio ns to d ism iss it for want of

jurisdiction.
I. When Congre ss enac ted the Crime C ontrol Act of 1990, Pub. L . No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4789, it p ro vid e d th a t th e B ur e a u o f P ri so ns “ sh a ll t o th e e xten t pr a c tic a ble , ma ke a va ila ble a pp ro pr ia te substance a

buse treatment for ea ch prisoner the B urea

u deter mines has a tre atable c ondition of substance a ddiction or abuse.” Id. § 2903 (codifie d as ame nded at 18 U.S.C
. § 3621). Four y ear s later, Cong ress a dded an inc entive for prisoners to use the treat m ent progra ms: I t permitted theNo. 09-1864

Pitts v. Zych

- 2 - Bur eau to r educe by

up to one y ear

the sentenc es of nonviolent off ender s who complete a substance abuse pr og ram. Violent Crime Control and L aw En fo rc em ent Act of 1994, Pub. L . No. 103-322, § 32001, 108 S t at
. 1 7 96, 1896–97 (codifie d at 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)( 2)(B )). Not a ll inmates are elig ible for early

rele ase unde r the prog ram, a s the regulations ex clude those w ith “a prior f elony or misdemeanor c onviction for” homicide, forcible ra pe, robbe ry , ag g ravated assault, ar son, kidnaping or child sexual abuse. 28 C.F.R. § 550.55(b)
. A prog ram stateme nt expl ains how the B urea u deter mines ear ly -re lease elig ibilit y . When an inmate asks to par t i ci pate in a dr ug abuse pr og ram, a

prog ram c oordinator c onducts an “ initial revie w” to scr een f

or seve ral disquali fy i n g char acte ristics, none of whic h bear on Pitt s’ ca se. See Prog ram S tatement P 5331.02 at 5 (Ear ly Release Procedur es Under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e) ), av ail ab le at http:// www.bop.g ov/policy /prog stat/5331_002.pdf. I f t he inm ate clear s this hurdle, the pr og ram coordinator sends the case to the Desig nation and Sentenc e Computation Center, which c onducts an “off ense r eview.” Id. at 5– 6. Th e Ce nte r’ s le g a l st a ff “ or din ari ly

ha [s] 30 wo rk ingda

y s to de te rm ine ” wh e the r t

he inm a te ’s c ur

re nt o ff e ns e and pr ior c on vic tio ns make him

ine lig ibl e fo r e arl y rele ase. Id. a t 6. Th e sta ff the n te lls the pr og ra

m c oo rd inator , wh o te lls the inm a te , wh e the r h e is elig ible for e arly

rele ase. Id.
Pitt s is serving a 46-month sentenc e for conspiring to distribu t e co ca i n e. He e ntere d the prison’s drugabuse pr og ram with the hope that it would make him elig ible for e arly rele ase. F ear ing that a “27 y ear

old conviction” will preve nt him from rec eiving this benef it, R.1 at 7–8, Pit ts filed
a § 2 24 1 p e tit ion , c omp la ini ngthat th e B ur e a u’ s r e g ulatio n is “ arb itr ary , c a pr ic iou s and

c on tr ary toNo. 09-1864

Pitts v. Zych

- 3 - law” be cause (1) “the BOP failed to articulate a rational connection between the fac ts found and the
c ho ic e s ma de ” ; and

(2 ) t he re g ulatio n d oe s not c on ta in a “ sta le ne ss” or

“ statut e of

lim itatio ns ” component that would pre vent the B urea u from conside ring old convictions. Id. at 7.
The district court summarily reje cted the petition on the m erits. I t rea soned that the B urea u may cate g orica lly

exclude cer

tain inmates from e arly

rele ase a

nd that the B urea

u’s re g ulat ion repr esents a va lid ex erc ise of this authority . Pitt s appea led.
II.
B e f o r e tu r n in g to th e me r it s o f th e a p p e a l, w e mu s t a s s e s s w h e th e r th e d is tr ict court ha d jurisdiction to entertain Pitt s’ petition in the first place —whether in pa rticular this dispute is ripe f or consideration. Neither pa rty , it is t rue, ha s challeng ed the district cour t’s authority to hear

this case. But, a s many

a fe dera l court has sa id, we have “an inde pendent obligat i o n t o p o l i ce our own jurisdiction.” SEC v. Basic Ene rgy &Affili ated Res., I nc. , 273 F.3d 657, 665 ( 6th Cir. 2001).
To dec ide whethe r a c ase ha s ripened into an action appropr iate for judicial resolution, we
a sk tw o q ue sti on s: ( 1) is the dis pu te “ fi t” fo r a c ourt de c isi on in t he se ns e that it

ari se s in “ a c on c re te fac tual context” and involves “a dispute that is likely

to come to pass”? and (2) what a re the risks t o t h e c l a i m an t i f t h e f

e d e r a l c o u rt s s t ay t h e i r

h an d ? W

arshak v. United States , 532 F.3d 521, 525 (6 th C ir . 2 00 8) ; see Abbott Labs. v. Gardner , 387 U.S. 136, 149 (1967).No. 09-1864

Pitts v. Zych

- 4 - Pitt s’ petition is not fit for judicial resolution. Although Pit ts say s that he “has enter ed the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment P rog ram,” R.1 at 8, he does not say whether the B urea u has made a dec ision about e arly -re lease elig ibilit y , and he conce des that he has not pursue d any administrative
reme dies. Wit hout elaboration, Pi tts adds that 28 C.F.R. § 550.55 and the prog ram stateme nt “ar e be ingre lie d u

po n b y the BOP to d e ny

him e arl y re le a se , b a se d u

po n [a ] pr ior

27 y e ar o ld conviction.” Id. at 7. Yet, to re peat, he does not claim that the B urea u has said he is ineligible for
e arl y re le a se , a nd Pitt s’ ow n ple a din g s su g g e st that th e B ur e a u h a s sa id n oth ingof

the kin d. I n h is
m o t i o nt o al t er o r am en d t h e di s t ri ct co u rt ’s j u d gm en t , P i t t s ad m i t s t h at “h e i s n o tm ak i n g a c h al l en ge ag ainst any

deter mination, decision, or orde r m ade by the B OP.” R.6 at 2. Until the releva nt leg al sta ff of the B ur e a u d e te rm ine s th a t Pitts i s in e lig ibl e fo r e arl y re le a se , w e do no t kn owwh e the r P itt s
w i l l s u f f e r an y i n j u r y. Nor will hardship re sult if we deny consideration of the petition at this point . I n the abse nce of injury and in vie w of the possibili ty that no injury will e ver occur , it is di fficult to maintain that anysuffe ring will result from a de termination that this disput e i s n o t ripe. B eca use the B urea

u’s offe nse-r eview pr ocess usua lly takes no more than 30 workingday s, see Prog ram Statement P5331.02 at 6, Pitt s rema ins in a position to lear n promptly whether he is elig ible for e arly rele ase. I f he is ine lig ibl e , he imm e diate ly c an r e a sse rt

his c la im w ith ou t th e fo g of un c e rt a int

y that pr e ve nts revie w today
. This c a lc u lu s mi g h t d if

f e r , w e r e a li ze , if

th e in e li g ib il it

y d e te r mi n a ti o nw e r e a

f o reg one conclusion. Ye t that is not t he ca se. Pitts does not say what “27 y ear

old conviction” bar s him fromNo. 09-1864

Pitts v. Zych

- 5 - se nte nc e -r e du c tio n e lig ibi lity , wh ic h dis tin g uis he s h is c a se fr om Handley v . Chapman , 587 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2009). I n that case , Handley was a prisoner who filed a § 2241 ha beas pe tition challeng ing the B urea u’s “policy of categ orica lly denying ear ly rele ase eligibility to inmates convicted a s felons in possessi o n o f a fi re ar m under 18 U .S.C. § 922(g) .” Id. at 280. The c ourt held that Ha ndley ’s
c la ims we re ri pe —e ve n th ou gh the B ur e a u h a d n ot y e t sa id s he wa s in e lig ibl e fo r e arl y
re le a se —b e c a

us e sh e fi le d a

fa c ia l c ha lle ng e a g a ins t a po lic y that de nie d h e r t

he po ssi bil ity

of e arl y rele ase. Id. ; see also Torres v. Chapman , 359 F. App’x 459, 461 (5th Cir. 2009). B ut in Handley , there was no que stion that t h e p ri s oner ha d been c onvicted of a § 922(g ) off

ense a nd that the Bur eau’ s reg

ulation barre d her e arly rele ase. Her e, the petition does not say whether Pitt s has a prior
c on vic tio n th a t w ou ld m a ke him ine lig ibl e fo r e arl y re le a se . We the re fo re c ann ot t e ll w he the r t his is an “a bstract disag ree ment[] over a dminist rative policie s,” or a n actu al “c o n troversy

‘ripe’ for judicial resolution.” Ab bo tt La bs

. , 387 U.S. at 148. Be cause Pitt s did not alleg e suff icient fa cts for
us to d isc e rn

wh e the r h e ha s a

c on vic tio n th a t w ill ba

r h is e arl y re le a se , h is c la ims do no t “ ari se [] in
a concr ete f

actua l context [ or] concer

n[] a dispute that is likely

to come to pass.” W

arshak , 532 F.3d at 525.
III
. F or the se re a so ns , we va c a te the jud g me nt a nd re mand the c a se wi th i ns tr

uc tio ns to d ism iss it for want of

jurisdiction.