Opinion ID: 222863
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reasonableness of RDAP Eligibility Requirement

Text: RDAP spawned from 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), which directed the BOP to make available appropriate substance abuse treatment for each prisoner the Bureau determines has a treatable condition of substance addiction or abuse. Under BOP regulations, to be eligible for RDAP, an inmate must have a verifiable, documented drug abuse problem that occurred within 12 months of his arrest. 28 C.F.R. § 550.53(b)(1) (explaining that a verifiable substance abuse disorder is a prerequisite to enrollment in RDAP); BOP Program Statement 5330.11 § 2.5.8(d)(2) (BOP may verify an inmate's substance abuse disorder by consulting [d]ocumentation to support a substance use disorder within the 12-month period before the inmate's arrest on his or her current offense). The BOP has discretion to grant early release of up to one year to inmates who successfully complete RDAP. § 3621(e)(2)(B). Because the BOP's 12-month-window requirement is codified in a program statement rather than formal regulation, we must give the language some deference if it involves a permissible construction of the statute. Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 61, 115 S.Ct. 2021, 132 L.Ed.2d 46 (1995) (quotation omitted); see also United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 220, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001) ([A]n agency's interpretation may merit some deference whatever its form, given the specialized experience and broader investigations and information available to the agency and given the value of uniformity in its administration and judicial understandings of what a national law requires.) Standifer concedes he did not have a verifiable substance abuse disorder within one year of his arrest. He told the district court that in 2003, he stopped using all substances on his own volition, and that after a January 2004 relapse, he successfully completed an Oklahoma Department of Corrections rehabilitation program. Standifer has been drug free ever since. Given these facts, Standifer does not dispute he was ineligible for RDAP under BOP regulations. Rather, he argues the BOP exceeded statutory authority, under the APA, when it conditioned participation in RDAP on an inmate having a documented drug-abuse problem within 12 months of his arrest. [3] This argument is unavailing. The BOP's 12-month-period eligibility requirement for participation in RDAP accords with authorizing statutes. Pursuant to statute, RDAP is open only to prisoners who  have a substance abuse problem. § 3621(e)(5)(B) (emphasis added). The word have is in the present tense; the statute does not require the BOP to offer any treatment for inmates who suffered from drug abuse in the past. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992) (Congress' use of a verb tense is significant in construing statutes.). This language reflects Congress's intention that RDAP be made available only to prisoners with current drug-abuse problems. Accordingly, the BOP's interpretation  which limits RDAP to inmates with current or recent drug-abuse problems  is reasonable, infringes no constitutional right, and merits deference. See, e.g., Mora-Meraz v. Thomas, 601 F.3d 933, 942-43 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding the BOP's 12-month eligibility requirement was a reasonable interpretation of the statute); Laws v. Barron, 348 F.Supp.2d 795, 805-06 (E.D.Ky.2004) ([C]ommon sense would dictate that entry into [RDAP] would be restricted to those prisoners having a recent history of abuse, rather than one who can demonstrate that he had a substance abuse problem 4 to 9 years prior to arrest and 7 to 12 years prior to incarceration.). Standifer's reliance on Wilson v. Kastner, 385 Fed.Appx. 855 (10th Cir.2010) (unpublished), is misplaced. Wilson was a federal inmate who developed a drug abuse problem while incarcerated. Id. at 858. Under an uncodified BOP practice, Wilson was ineligible for RDAP because he did not have any documented drug abuse problem in the 12 months preceding his arrest (as opposed to during his incarceration). Id. at 862-83. We overturned the BOP's eligibility decision because § 3621(e)(5)(B) refers to a current, not a past, substance abuse problem and the BOP's policies must be directed at identifying those prisoners with a current substance abuse problem. Id. at 862 (emphasis added). We held, [i]f the twelve-month policy is reasonable when applied to exclude inmates who lack evidence of recent substance abuse, it should not exclude inmates who have evidence of recent abuse merely because that substance abuse occurred during a period of incarceration. Id. at 863. Wilson is not binding precedent, and it is distinguishable. Standifer's case is categorically different: there is simply no suggestion that Standifer had a current drug-abuse problem  either while imprisoned or in the twelve months preceding his arrest. Finally, to the extent Standifer raises a due process claim resulting in his exclusion from RDAP, it also fails. A prisoner has no constitutional right to participate in RDAP, see Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1228 n. 4 (9th Cir.2011), and similarly, a prisoner has no liberty interest in discretionary early release for completion of RDAP, Fristoe v. Thompson, 144 F.3d 627, 630 (10th Cir.1998) (stating that § 3621(e)(2)(B) allows a decisionmaker to deny the requested relief within its unfettered discretion [and] does not create a constitutionally-recognized liberty interest). Because the BOP's 12-month-period eligibility requirement is a reasonable implementation of Congress's mandate, we defer to the BOP's rule and deny Standifer's claim.