Close v. Thomas; Sass v. Thomas; Stockton v. Thomas; Moschetti v. Thomas; Shotland v. Thomas; Tamez, Jr. v. Thomas; Beverly v. Thomas; Snoozy v. Thomas; Anderton v. Thomas; Merry v. Thomas, No. 10-35850 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, and nine other similarly situated prisoners, appealed the district court's judgment denying their 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas corpus petitions. At issue was whether these consolidated habeas corpus petitions required the court to consider the manner in which the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) prioritized a prisoner's eligibility for entering into a Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program (RDAP). The court found no error in the BOP's interpretation of the governing statute, 18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(1), and therefore, affirmed the district court's judgment. The court noted, however, that the BOP's administration of RDAP, combined with the program's insufficient capacity, had created a troubling situation that called for a legislative or regulatory remedy.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.