United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R.Wilhoit. Jr. United States District Judge
Jack Mann is an inmate confined by the Bureau of Prisons
("BOP") at the Federal Correctional
Institution-Ashland, located in Ashland, Kentucky
("FCI-Ashland"). Proceeding without an attorney,
Mann has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [D.E. No. 1], as well as briefs in
support of his § 2241 petition. [D. E. Nos. 1-2, 7] In
his petition, Mann challenges his exclusion from the
BOP's Residential Drug Abuse ("RDAP")
I. Procedural Background
In September 2010, pursuant to a Plea Agreement with the
United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana,
Mann pled guilty in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois to Solicitation to Commit
Murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 373 and 18 U.S.C.
§ 2. United States v. Jack Mann, No.
1:10-CR-35-2-SMM (N.D. 111. 2010). [Record Nos. 10, 43, 44,
86, 91, 146 therein] Mann was sentenced by the Honorable
William J. Hibbler, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Illinois, to one hundred and five (105)
months of imprisonment. [Id. at Record No. 86-2] In
the Judgment, Judge Hibbler states: "The defendant is
hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau
of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of: ONE
HUNDRED-FIVE (105) MONTHS. Defendant shall participate in
the Residential Drug and Alcohol Program and mental health
evaluation and treatment. [Id. (emphasis added)] With
respect to the recommendations made to the Bureau of Prisons,
Judge Hibbler recommends that Defendant be placed at the
Oxford, Wisconsin or Milan, Michigan facility. [Id.]
petition, Mann argues that, because the language in the
Judgment stating that "Defendant shall participate in
the Residential Drug and Alcohol Program and mental health
evaluation and treatment, " is part of the sentencing
language itself and not in the "Recommendations"
section of the Judgment, the Judgment imposes a requirement
that Mann participate in the RDAP program. [D.E. No. 1 at p.
3] Although Mann concedes that the BOP has control over
participation in treatment programs, including the RDAP, he
argues that, in his case, his participation in the RDAP is
required by his Judgment. [D.E. No. 1 at p. 5] Accordingly,
Mann argues that the BOP's failure to comply with this
requirement of his Judgment is arbitrary and capricious in
violation of the APA, as well as his constitutional rights.
[Id.; D.E. No. 1-2 at p. 1-3] Mann also argues that,
as a result of his exclusion from the RDAP, he is being
treated differently to other federal inmates who are
"similarly situated" and that this unequal
treatment is the result of purposeful or intentional
discrimination. [D.E. No. 1 at p. 5; D.E. No. 1-2 at p. 3]
Finally, Mann argues that, because the BOP has allegedly
"dragged their feet to assure that Mann is not given the
ability to participate or receive the time credit" for
the RDAP program, he should now be given full credit for the
participation in the RDAP program, even though he has not
actually participated. [D.E. No. 1 at p. 3]
Court conducts an initial review of habeas corpus petitions.
28 U.S.C. § 2243; Alexander v. Northern Bureau of
Prisons, 419 F.App'x 544, 545 (6th Cir. 2011). The
Court evaluates Mann's petition under a more lenient
standard because he is not represented by an attorney.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). At this
stage of the proceedings, the Court accepts the
petitioner's factual allegations as true and construes
all legal claims in his favor. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). After reviewing
Mann's petition, the Court concludes that it must be
denied because, for several reasons, "it plainly appears
from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts (applicable to § 2241 petitions pursuant
to Rule 1(b)).
although Mann argues that the BOP's placement decision is
"arbitrary and capricious" in violation of the
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)-(C),
the BOP's determinations regarding halfway house
placement are expressly insulated from judicial review under
the APA. 28 U.S.C. § 3625 ("The provisions of
sections 554 and 555 and 701 through 706 of title 5, United
States Code, do not apply to the making of any determination,
decision, or order under this subchapter."). Cf.
Woodardv. Quintana, No. 5:15-307-KKC, 2015 WL
7185478, at *5-6 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 13, 2015). Indeed, as Mann
even recognizes in his petition, "[w]hen a court
sentences a federal offender, the BOP has plenary control,
subject to statutory constraints, over 'the place of the
prisoner's imprisonment, ' and the treatment programs
(if any) in which he may participate." Tapia v.
United States, 564 U.S. 319, 331 (2011)(citing 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3621(b), (e), (f); 3624(f); 28 C.F.R. pt. 544
(2010)). As explained by the United States Supreme Court,
"A sentencing court can recommend that the BOP
place an offender in a particular facility or program. But
decisionmaking authority rests with the BOP."
Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a)).
the language of Judge Hibbler's Order stating that
"Defendant shall participate in the Residential Drug and
Alcohol Program and mental health evaluation and
treatment" must be construed as a recommendation, albeit
a very strong one, to the BOP that Mann be placed in the
RDAP. However, this recommendation does not require the BOP
to place Mann in the RDAP.
to the extent that Mann challenges the BOP's
determination with respect to his participation in an RDAP on
constitutional grounds, any such challenge fails as a matter
of law, as Mann does not have a constitutional right to
participate in an RDAP . Cf. Standifer v. Ledezma,
653 F.3d 1276, 1279 (10th Cir. 2011) (no constitutional right
to participate in RDAP).
the BOP's online Inmate Locator Database indicates that
Mann has already been released from prison and transferred to
a halfway house in the Chicago, Illinois area, and that he
will be released from that facility on January 6, 2018. See
https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited on July
18, 2017). Mann has also filed a change of address in the
record in this case indicating that he now resides in
Chicago, Illinois. [D.E. Nos. 8, 9] Mann's release from
incarceration to a halfway house renders his claim seeking an
earlier placement in an RDAP moot. Miller v.
Whitehead, 527 F.3d 752, 756 (8th Cir. 2008); Zomber
v. Stine, No. 7: 07-402-DCR, 2008 WL 1735169, at *2
(E.D. Ky. Apr. 11, 2008) ("The Sixth Circuit has ruled
that a prisoner's placement in a RRC during the pendency
of a habeas corpus petition seeking earlier placement renders
the petition moot, and also falls outside the exception to
mootness for cases 'capable of repetition, yet evading
review.'") (citing Brockv. United States Dept.
of Justice, 2007 WL 4163854, at *2 n.3 (6th Cir. 2007)).
each of the foregoing reasons, Mann's petition must be
denied. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Petitioner Jack Mann's petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [D.E. ...