Case Name: Heriberto OSUNA-MOLINA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-17
Citations: 226 F. App'x 406
Docket Number: No. 06-10739
Parties: Heriberto OSUNA-MOLINA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 226
Pages: 406–407

Head Matter:
Heriberto OSUNA-MOLINA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-10739
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 17, 2007.
Heriberto Osuna-Molina, Big Spring, TX, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Heriberto Osuna-Molina, federal prisoner # 02722-051, appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he sought admission to the residential drug abuse program (RDAP) at FCI, Big Spring. Osuna-Molina argues that he was deprived of due process when he was denied entry into the RDAP at Big Spring pursuant to Program Statement 5331.01. He contends that it was unfair for officials to deny him treatment and placement into the RDAP and that officials at Big Spring should be required to accept the recommendation of the Bureau of Prisons's (BOP) drug specialist in Fort Worth that he be admitted into the RDAP. According to Osuna-Molina, he merely sought treatment, not early release from prison. He further contends that the district court erred by not allowing him to amend his pleadings before dismissing the case.
The determination that Osuna-Molina was ineligible for the RDAP was within the BOP's discretion. See Rublee v. Fleming, 160 F.3d 213, 215 (5th Cir.1998). Osuna-Molina has not demonstrated a protected constitutional interest in admission to the RDAP. See id. at 217. Finally, Osuna-Molina pleaded his best case; the district court need not have allowed him to amend his § 2241 petition. See Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 793 (5th Cir. 1986).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.