Moses Trejo v. Washington-Aducci
Filing
7
ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge R. Gary Klausner, re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) 1 . the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of Petitioners habeas petition, and dismisses the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (shb)
<![CDATA[
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-00504 RGK
CR 09-00266-RGK
Title
MOSES TREJO v. ARCOLA WASHINGTON-ADUCCI, WARDEN, F.C.I.
TERMINAL ISLAND
Present: The
Honorable
Date
May 3, 2012
R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Sharon L. Williams
Not Reported
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present
Not Present
Proceedings:
(IN CHAMBERS) Order Re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (DE 1)
On August 17, 2009, the United States District Court sentenced Moses Trejo (“Petitioner”) to a
60-month term of imprisonment for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession of a firearm).
As a result, Petitioner is now a Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) inmate incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institution located in Terminal Island.
On January 19, 2012, Petitioner filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Petitioner seeks relief based on Respondent’s denial of early release under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e), which
allows for such release upon successful completion of the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program
(“RDAP”). Respondent asserts that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3625. Upon review of both the Petition and Respondent’s Answer, the Court agrees with
Respondent.1
In Reeb v. Thomas, the Ninth Circuit cites to § 3621 and states, “[d]etermining which prisoners
are eligible to participate in RDAP is within the discretion of the BOP,. . ., as is the decision to grant or
deny eligible prisoners sentence reductions upon successful completion of the program.” 636 F.3d 1224,
1226 (9th Cir. 2011). The court then holds that the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 3625 bars application
of the Administrative Procedure Act’s (“APA”) judicial review provisions from “any determination,
decision, or order” made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § § 3621-3624. Id. at 1227.
According to the record, on December 8, 2010, the Drug Abuse Program Coordinator conducted
a clinical interview of Petitioner and concluded that Petitioner was eligible for participation in the
1
Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Answer was due on April 23, 2012. Court records show that, to date, Petitioner
has not filed his Reply.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
RDAP. (Phillips Decl., ¶ 10D.) Petitioner was then reviewed for § 3621(e) early release. Id. On January
11, 2011, the legal department at the BOP’s Designation and Sentence Computation Center completed
an offense review for Petitioner and found that he is precluded from early release due to his offense
conviction for Felon in Possession of a Firearm. (Phillips Decl., ¶ 10E.) It is this determination that
forms the ground on which Petitioner seeks § 2241 relief. As BOP’s determination of eligibility to
participate in RDAP and eligibility for early release fall squarely within § 3621(e), the APA bars any
judicial review of such decision.2
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of
Petitioner’s habeas petition, and dismisses the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer
slw
2
The Ninth Circuit held that judicial review remains available for allegations that BOP action, as
generally applied, is contrary to established federal law, violated the U.S. Constitution, or exceeds its
statutory authority. Reeb, 636 F.3d at 1228. As in Reeb, however, this current action involves only
allegations that BOP erred in Petitioner’s individualized case.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
