IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DWAYNE A. GLENN, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-15-1834

:

WARDEN C. MAIORANA, : (Judge Brann)

:

Respondent :

MEMORANDUM

November 6, 2015

Background

Dwayne A. Glenn, an inmate presently confined at the Canaan United States

Penitentiary, Waymart, Pennsylvania (USP-Canaan), filed this pro se petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Named as Respondent is

USP-Canaan Warden C. Maiorana. The required filing fee has been paid. Service

of the petition has not been ordered.

Petitioner states that he plead guilty to possession with intent to distribute

heroin in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. 

According to the Petition, he was sentenced on May 8, 2013 to serve a 48 month

term of incarceration with 3 years of supervised release. See Doc. 1, p. 4. Glenn’s

1

Case 4:15-cv-01834-MWB-JVW Document 6 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 6
pending action does not challenge the legality of his guilty plea or sentence.

Rather, Petitioner states that while serving his federal sentence, the Federal

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) determined that although Petitioner could participate in

the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program (RDAP) he would not be eligible

for a one year sentence reduction if he successfully completed the program.

The RDAP has two components, a five hundred (500) hour classroom

program and a transitional services portion which is completed in a halfway house. 

Upon completion of both segments, the inmate applicant is eligible for a one (1)

year sentence reduction. Although Petitioner indicates that he successfully

completed the classroom program component of the RDAP on August 13, 2015,

he is ineligible for the one year sentence reduction.

Specifically, Petitioner asserts that he was informed by the BOP that although he

could participate in the RDAP he would not be eligible for a sentence reduction

“because he received a two-point sentence enhancement under the Federal

Sentencing Guidelines of possession of a firearm in connection with his drug

conviction.”1

 Doc. 1, p. 4. 

Petitioner additionally asserts that the exhaustion of administrative remedies

requirement should be waived in his case on the basis of futility. As relief, Glenn

1

 Glenn does not dispute that he was in possession of a firearm. 

2

Case 4:15-cv-01834-MWB-JVW Document 6 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 6
seeks his immediate placement in a pre-release placement in a Residential Reentry

Center (“RRC”) “for the completion of the RDAP.” Doc. 1, p. 1. 

Discussion

Habeas corpus petitions are subject to summary dismissal pursuant to Rule

4 (“Preliminary Review”) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the

United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (2004). See, e.g., Mutope v.

Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 2007 WL 846559 *2 (M.D. Pa.

March 19, 2007)(Kosik, J.). The provisions of Rule 4 are applicable to § 2241

petitions under Rule 1(b)). See, e.g., Patton v. Fenton, 491 F. Supp. 156, 158-59

(M.D. Pa. 1979). 

Rule 4 provides in pertinent part: “If it plainly appears from the petition and

any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,

the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” A

petition may be dismissed without review of an answer “when the petition is

frivolous, or obviously lacking in merit, or where. . . the necessary facts can be

determined from the petition itself. . . .” Gorko v. Holt, 2005 WL 1138479

*1(M.D. Pa. May 13, 2005)(McClure, J.)(quoting Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134,

141 (6th Cir. 1970).

Habeas corpus review under § 2241 “allows a federal prisoner to challenge

3

Case 4:15-cv-01834-MWB-JVW Document 6 Filed 11/06/15 Page 3 of 6
the ‘execution’ of his sentence.” Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d

235, 241 (3d Cir. 2005). A habeas corpus petition may be brought by a prisoner

who seeks to challenge either the fact or duration of his confinement in prison. 

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), Telford v. Hepting, 980 F.2d 745, 748

(3d Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 920 (1993). Federal habeas relief is available only

“where the deprivation of rights is such that it necessarily impacts the fact or

length of detention.” Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002).

As discussed above, habeas corpus relief is limited to issues which impact

the fact or length of detention. Even upon a prisoner’s successful completion of

the RDAP, the granting of an RDAP sentence reduction is discretionary and may

even be revoked by the BOP. In Hickerson v. Willingham, 2006 WL 3422186 * 3

(D. Con. Nov. 28, 2006) the district court, citing Jacks v. Crabtree, 114 F.3d 983,

986 n.4 (9th Cir. 1997), held that “denial of early release following completion of

the RDAP does not deny an inmate a liberty interest protected under the due

process clause.” The district court noted that there was no double jeopardy or due

process violation because the denial of early release only caused the inmate to

serve the sentence which had been previously imposed. 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Beckley v.

Miner, 125 Fed. Appx. 385, 388 (3d Cir. 2005) similarly stated even if the RDAP

4

Case 4:15-cv-01834-MWB-JVW Document 6 Filed 11/06/15 Page 4 of 6
is “completed to perfection”, the BOP still has “complete discretion to require

petitioner to serve his full sentence.” The United States Court of Appeals for the

Fifth Circuit similarly held that when an eligible prisoner completes the RDAP,

the BOP has the authority “but not the duty” to reduce the term of imprisonment.” 

Richardson v. Joslin, 501 F.3d 415, 420 (5th Cir. 2007). 

Richardson added that since there was no entitlement to a sentence

reduction upon successful RDAP completion, the failure to reduce an inmate’s

sentence was not a deprivation of a protected liberty interest. See also, Fanning v.

Patton, 2007 WL 2979927 *5-6 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 11, 2007)(because a prisoner does

not have a liberty interest in a reduced sentence, denial of early release upon

successful completion of RDAP is not actionable). Since the BOP had discretion

to revoke the RDAP sentence reduction at any time, even if there was successful

completion of the RDAP by Petitioner, he still did not have a protected liberty

interest or a reasonable expectation to a one (1) year RDAP sentence reduction. 

See Douvos v. Quintana, 382 Fed. App’x 119, 122 (3d Cir. 2009); Hinojoza v.

BOP, 2014 WL 2003035 *3 (N.D. Ohio May 14, 2014)(“early release as a result

of RDAP participation is not guaranteed”).

Pursuant to the above discussion, the Petitioner is not entitled to federal

habeas corpus relief. An appropriate Order will enter.

5

Case 4:15-cv-01834-MWB-JVW Document 6 Filed 11/06/15 Page 5 of 6
BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

6

Case 4:15-cv-01834-MWB-JVW Document 6 Filed 11/06/15 Page 6 of 6