United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
MURRAY S. HARRIS, JR., Petitioner,
FRANCISCO QUINTANA, Warden Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
K. CALDWELL, CHIEF JUDGE
inmate Murray S. Harris, Jr., has filed a pro se
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. [R. 1] This matter is before the Court to
conduct the initial screening required by 28 U.S.C. §
2243. Alexander v. Northern Bureau of Prisons, 419
Fed.Appx. 544, 545 (6th Cir. 2011). A petition will be denied
“if 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)).
April 2012, after Harris pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 1
kilogram or more of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.§
846, he was sentenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois to a term of imprisonment
of 130 months. In July 2015, the trial court granted
Harris's motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c) and reduced Harris's sentence to a
term of 120 months. United States v. Harris, No.
3:10-cr-50078-2 (N.D. Ill. 2010).
he began service of his sentence, Harris enrolled in the
Bureau of Prisons' (“BOP”) 500hour
Residential Drug Abuse Program (“RDAP”). With
some exceptions, federal inmates who complete the RDAP are
eligible, at the BOP's discretion, to a reduction in
their sentence of up to one year. 18 U.S.C. §
3621(e)(2)(B). According to Harris, after he completed the
RDAP, the BOP recommended placement for Harris in a halfway
house (also known as a Residential Reentry Center or
“RRC”) for 9-12 months. [R. 1 at p. 2] Harris was
then “granted” 9 months in a halfway house and
was scheduled to report to the halfway house on January 17,
2018. [Id.] However, Harris was subsequently
notified that the halfway house to which he was scheduled to
report had “insufficient funds, ” thus he was
given a new reporting date of June 6, 2018. [Id.] He
also states that he had already been given a home confinement
eligibility date of April 10, 2018. [Id.; R. 1-3] In
his § 2241 petition, Harris seeks immediate placement on
home confinement, on the grounds that the date on which he
was first eligible for home confinement (April 10, 2018) is
earlier than his new date to report to a halfway house (June
6, 2018). [R. 1 at p.3]
the allegations of Harris's petition fail to establish
viable grounds for relief that may be granted by this Court.
Although RRC placement and home confinement are helpful
resources for readjustment to society, a federal prisoner
does not have a constitutionally protected right to serve the
final twelve months of his sentence in either an RRC or home
confinement. Although the Second Chance Act, Pub.L. No.
110-199, 122 Stat. 657 (Apr. 9, 2008), amended 18 U.S.C.
§ 3624(c) to authorize the BOP to consider
placing an inmate in an RRC or home confinement for up to
twelvemonths, it does not automatically entitle, or
guarantee, any prisoner such placement for any minimum amount
of time. See Heard v. Quintana, 184 F.Supp.3d 515,
520 (E.D. Ky. 2016). See also Demis v. Sniezek, 558
F.3d 508, 514 (6th Cir. 2009); Boals v. Quintana,
No. 5:15-cv-335-JMH, 2015 WL 8665404, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Dec.
11, 2015); Harris v. Hickey, No. 10-cv-135-JMH, 2010
WL 1959379, at *3 (E.D. Ky. May 17, 2010). Indeed, “the
decision to place an inmate in pre-release community
confinement and/or home confinement is discretionary and will
be ‘determined on an individual basis' according to
the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).”
Boals, 2015 WL 8665404 at *2 (citing McIntosh v.
Hickey, No. 10-cv-126-JMH, 2010 WL 1959308, at *3 (E.D.
Ky., May 17, 2010)).
before a prisoner may seek habeas relief under § 2241,
he must first exhaust his administrative remedies within the
Bureau of Prisons. Fazzini v. Northeast Ohio Correctional
Center, 473 F.3d 229, 231 (6th Cir. 2006). Here, Harris
fails to indicate whether he has presented his request for
home confinement to the BOP, opting to leave blank the
questions regarding his pursuit of his administrative
remedies on the § 2241 form that he used to file his
petition. [R. 1-1] However, even if he had made such a
request to the BOP, the BOP's placement decisions,
including determinations regarding halfway house and home
confinement placement, are expressly insulated from judicial
review, as the provisions of the Administrative Procedures
Act (“APA”) do not apply to such decisions. 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. Woodard v.
Quintana, No. 5:15-cv-307-KKC, 2015 WL 7185478, at *5-6
(E.D. Ky. Nov. 13, 2015).
of the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Harris's
petition. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
Harris's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 [R. 1] is DENIED
action is DISMISSED and