Filed: May 04, 2012
Latest Update: May 04, 2012
Summary: PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION J. THOMAS RAY, Magistrate Judge. INSTRUCTIONS The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge James M. Moody. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original
Summary: PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION J. THOMAS RAY, Magistrate Judge. INSTRUCTIONS The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge James M. Moody. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original a..
More
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
J. THOMAS RAY, Magistrate Judge.
INSTRUCTIONS
The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge James M. Moody. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.
If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the United States District Judge, you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include a "Statement of Necessity" that sets forth the following:
1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.
2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the requested hearing before the United States District Judge was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.
3. An offer of proof setting forth the details of any testimony or other evidence (including copies of any documents) desired to be introduced at the requested hearing before the United States District Judge.
From this submission, the United States District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.
Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:
Clerk, United States District Court
Eastern District of Arkansas
600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A 149
Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
I. Background
On June 1, 2010, while serving an 18-month sentence at the Federal Correctional Complex in Forrest City, Arkansas, Petitioner initiated this § 2241 habeas action. (Docket entry #2). In his Petition, he alleges that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") violated the Second Chance Act when it recommend him for 91 to 120 months of Residential Re-entry Center ("RRC") placement instead of the twelve months of RRC placement that he requested. Id. He argues that the BOP failed to individually consider his case in good faith. Id.
Respondent argues that Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that the BOP properly determined Petitioner's prerelease RRC placement according to the Second Chance Act. (Docket entry #8).
For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that Petitioner's habeas claim is moot.
II. Discussion
The record reflects that Petitioner's habeas claim was mooted shortly after the issues were joined in this case, on September 23, 2010, when Petitioner was moved from FCC Forest City to a RRC in Little Rock, Arkansas. (Docket entry #11).
In any event, Petitioner's habeas claim is without merit. Petitioner's administrative documentation reflects that he underwent a RRC assessment on April 25, 2010, and was recommended for 91-120 days of RRC placement. (Docket entry #8-1 at 10). Importantly, there is nothing in the applicable statutes or case law that entitles a prisoner to RRC placement for a particular period of time, much less for 12 months.1 Rather, Respondent's duty is to individually consider a prisoner for RRC placement pursuant to the statutory factors set forth in § 3621(b). Although Petitioner was only recommended for 91 to 120 days of RRC placement, it appears that the BOP's decision was based on its individual consideration of the factors identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).
III. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT the Petition for Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (docket entry #2) be DENIED, and the case be DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE.
