Cernak v. Thomas, No. 3:2010cv00897 - Document 23 (D. Or. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2 is DENIED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 05/20/2011 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gw)

Download PDF
FILED20 i'lAY' i 109 :4 1t.iSj.lC·oR~· IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION CARLOS CERNAK, CV. 10-897-MO Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER v. JEFFREY THOMAS, Warden, Respondent. STEPHEN R. SADY Office of the Federal Public Defender 101 SW main Street, Suite 1700 Portland, OR 97204 Attorney for Petitioner DWIGHT C. HOLTON United States Attorney RONALD K. SILVER Assistant United States Attorney 1000 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204-2902 Attorneys for Respondent 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Mosman, District Judge. Peti tioner, Sheridan, an inmate at Oregon Federal Correctional ("FCI Sheridan") Institution, at the time of filing, this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. the Bureau of Prisons' § brings He alleges ("BOP") regulations, codified at 28 C.F.R. 550.55 (b) (5) (2009), that categorically disqualify inmates with a current felony conviction for an offense involving the carrying, possession, or use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon or explosives from the early release incentive associated with the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program (nRDAP"), are procedurally invalid. Petitioner asks the Court to invalidate regulations under the Administrative Procedures Act the 2009 (nAPA n ), and order the BOP to evaluate his eligibility for the early release incentive without regard to the 2009 rules. For the reasons set forth in Peck v. Thomas, CV 10-709 (Mar. 30, 2011), the Court finds 28 C.F.R. § 550.55(b) (5) (2009) valid under the APA. Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to relief and the Writ of Habeas Corpus (#2) is DENIED. BACKGROUND I. Statutory Background. In 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621-3625, Congress vested the BOP with broad authority to manage the imprisonment of a convicted person, and specified "[t]he Bureau shall make available appropriate substance abuse treatment for each prisoner the Bureau determines treatable condition of substance addiction or abuse." 2 - OPINION AND ORDER has a 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). mandate In for § 3621(e), Congress articulated a specific statutory residential "eligible prisoners. II substance abuse treatment programs for The program the BOP created to satisfy this mandate is the Residential Drub Abuse Program ("RDAp"). In 1994, Congress enacted the Violent Crime Control Enforcement Act of 1994 ("VCCLEA"); which amended 18 U.S.C. to include a discretionary early release incentive for § Law 3621 inmates convicted of non-violent offenses who successfully completed RDAP. 18 U.S.C. offenses. § 3621 (e) (2). 1 The statute does not define "non-violent II Beginning in 1995, exercising its broad discretion under the statute, the BOP promulgated a series of implementing regulations and internal agency guidelines for administering the early release incentive for non-violent offenders.2 These regulations and guidelines have excluded inmates convicted of a felony involving a firearm from eligibility for early release under § 3621 (e) (2). The 'Section 3621 (e) (2) specifies in relevant part: (A) Generally. Any prisoner who, in the judgment of the Director of the [BOP]; has successfully completed a program of residential substance abuse treatment provided under paragraph (1) of this subsection, shall remain in the custody of the [BOP] under such conditions as the Bureau deems appropriate. (B) Period of Custody. The period a prisoner convicted of a nonviolent offense remains in custody after successfully completing a treatment program may be reduced by the [BOP], but such reduction may not be more than one year from the term the prisoner must otherwise serve. II ' 2The regulations and internal guidelines relevant to this action include: 28 C.F.R. § 550.55(b) (5) (ii) (2009); Program Statement P5331.02 and P5162.05 (effective March 16, 2009). 3 - OPINION AND ORDER substantive and procedural validity of the BOP's categorical exclusion of inmates from eligibility for early release have been challenged in court repeatedly. The Ninth Circuit upheld the substantive validity of 28 C.F.R. § 550.58 (a) (1) (vi) (B) in Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211 (2000).3 The circuit court held the categorical exclusion of certain inmates from early release eligibility was a proper exercise of the BOP's discretion under the statute, and stated: "we see nothing unreasonable in the Bureau's making the common-sense decision that there is a significant potential for violence from criminals who carry, possess or use firearms while engaged in their felonious employment, even if they wound up committing a nonviolent offense this time." Id. at 1119. The following year, the Supreme Court upheld the substantive validity of the BOP's categorical exclusion of inmates from eligibility for early release in Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230 (2001). Finding 28 C.F.R. § 550.58 (a) (1) (vi) (B) was a proper exercise of the Bureau's discretion under the statute, the Court stated: [TJ he Bureau need not blind itself to pre-conviction conduct that the agency reasonably views as jeopardizing life and limb. ***** [TJhe statute's restriction of early release eligibility to nonviolent offenders does not cut short the considerations that may guide the Bureau. [TJ he Bureau 328 C.F.R. § 550.58(a) (1) (vi) (B) (2000) was re-codified as 28 C.F.R. § 550.55(b) (5) (ii) (2009). 4 - OPINION AND ORDER may consider aspects of the conduct of conviction, even though the conviction is a criterion of statutory eligibility. Id. at 243-244. The Court also held the "Bureau reasonably concluded than an inmate's prior involvement with firearms, in connection with the commission of a felony, suggests his readiness to resort to life-endangering violence and therefore appropriately determines the early release decision." In Lopez, Id. the Supreme Court did not address the procedural validity of the categorical exclusions under the APA. Id. at 244 n.6· (notice and comment requirement "not raised or decided below, or presented in the petition for Circuit, however, the BOP's certiorari."). regulations and In the Ninth related statements have been invalidated under § 706(2) (A) program of the APA. Section 706 (2) (A) specifies a "reviewing court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." II. Ninth Circuit Litigation Under 5 U.S.C. A. § 706(2) (A). 1995 Rule - 28 C.F.R. § 550.58(a) (1995). In § 550.58 and Program Statement P5162.02, an accompanying internal agency guidelines, the BOP defined which inmates had been convicted of "crimes of violence" and would therefore be excluded from eligibility for early release. "Felon firearm possession" was categorized as a crime of violence rendering inmates ineligible for early release. In Davis v. 5 - OPINION AND ORDER Crabtree, 109 F.3d 566, 568-70 (9th Cir. 1997) (inmate convicted of being firearm), the Ninth Circuit held felon that in possession of a the offense "felon in possession of firearm" had to be regarded as a nonviolent offense for purposes of § 3621(e) sentence reduction, and therefore the regulation The "the was invalid. court stated: BOP may not interpret the term "nonviolent offense" to exclude the offense of felon in possession of a firearm. We are bound by Downey [v. Crabtree, 100 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2006) (crime of violence does not encompass felon firearm possession under Ninth Circuit law) (citing cases)]." Davis, 109 F.3d at 668-70~ 1997 Interim Rule. B. Responding to a Circuit split on the question of the substantive validity of the 1995 regulations, the BOP promulgated 28 C.F.R. relied on § 550.58 (a) (1) (vi) (B) (1997). the Director's discretion In this under rule, the the BOP statute to categorically exclude inmates convicted of certain offenses from early release eligibility, including those with offenses involving the carrying, possession, or use of firearms, instead of relying on an interpretation of the statutory language "non-violent offenses" as it had in the 1995 rule. In Paulsen v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit found the BOP violated the APA in promulgating the 1997 interim rule because regulation was made effective prior to its (1) the interim publication in the Federal Register; and (2) although the BOP solicited comments, the 6 - OPINION AND ORDER comments were not taken into account prior to the regulation being made effective. 4 C. In 2000 Final Rule. December requirement under § 2000, § the notice and comment 553 of the APA, the BOP promulgated 28 C.F.R. 550.58 (a) (1) (vi) (B) (2000), a final regulation that was identical to the 1997 interim rule. (9th § respecting Cir. 2008) 706(2) (A) of the the In Arrington v. Daniels, 516 F.3d 1106, Ninth APA. Circuit The invalidated Ninth Circult the rule under found the first rationale identified by the lower court as a basis for categorical exclusion - the increased risk that offenders with convictions involving firearms might pose to the public - was "entirely absent from the administrative record." Arrington, 516 F. 3d at 1113. The court noted, the Bureau articulated this rationale in its brief to the Supreme Court in Lopez . . . and is precisely the type of post-hoc rationalization that the [court is forbidden] to consider in conducting review under the APA. Because no public safety rationale is present in the administrative record, the district court erred in relying on this explanation as a basis for its conclusion that the final rule withstands arbitrary and capricious review. 4Under the APA, agencies issuing rules must: (1) publish notice of the proposed rule-making in the Federal Register; (2) provide a period of comment on the proposed rule and consider comments submitted during the period before adopting the rule; and (3) publish the adopted rule not less than thirty days before its effective date. 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)-(d). 7 - OPINION AND ORDER Id. The Ninth Circuit also found the second rationale proffered by the BOP, exclusion need of for uniformity, prisoners with did not non-violent justify a categorical convictions involving firearms instead of a categorical inclusion of prisoners with non­ violent convictions involving firearms. found the BOP had not explained why, Id. at 1114. in seeking uniformity, it Id. chose to exclude prisoners rather than include them. As a The court result of the Davis and Arrington decisions, the BOP promulgated new interim rules governing early release eligibility. In January 2009, the BOP promulgated a final rule, and again relied on the discretion of the Director under the governing statute, as recognized in Lopez, to categorically exclude inmates convicted of certain offenses. s C.F.R. § The validity of the 2009 Rule, specifically 28 550.55(b) (5), is the subject of this habeas action. III. Factual Background. Petitioner was convicted of theft of firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924, and of being a felon in possession of a § 922 (u) and firearms and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g) and § 924 . at 4; #12, Attach. 2.) (#11, While on supervised release, Petitioner was convicted of possession of ammunition by an individual having thre'e SIn one action, the 2009 Rule finalized three proposed rules, issued in 2000, 2004, and 2006. 74 FR 1892-01, 2009 WL 76657 (January 14, 2009.) The 2009 rules are applicable to all inmates applying to RDAP after March 16, 2009. 8 - OPINION AND ORDER prior felony and convictions, imprisonment. (#11, at 4.) was sentenced to 37 months He was also sentenced to a consecutive 6 months for violation of the terms of his supervised release. Petitioner's (Id. ) March 11, 2012. projected good-time credit release date is (#12, Attach. 1.) Petitioner was interviewed for the RDAP program on or about March 12, 2010, and on March 25, 2010, he was determined to be ineligible for early release under 18 U.S.C. 3.) § 3621(e). (#11, at The Offense Review form listed the "precluding current offense information, and relevant regulations, policy, and other information ri as follows: 1) Theft of Firearms from a Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer; 18 usc 922(u) and 924 - precluding pursuant to regulations cited above [28 C.F.R. § 550.55J, in addition to PS 5162.05 sections 3.a and 3.c. 2) Felon in Possession of Firearms; 18 USC 922(g) and 924 - precluding pursuant to regulations cited above [28 C.F.R. § 550.55J, in addition to PS 5162.05 sections 3.a, 3.c, and 4.e. 3) Felon in Possession of Ammunition; 18 USC 922(g) precluding pursuant to regulations cited above [28 C.F.R. § 550.55J, in addition to PS 5162.05 sections 3.a and 4. e. (#12, Attach. 2.) Petitioner challenges the validity of the rules under which the BOP designated him ineligible for early release under § 706 of the APA. (#22, at 3.) DISCUSSION In Lopez v. Davis, discretion under 18 the Supreme Court held that the BOP has U.S.C. § 3621 to promulgate regulations categorically denying the early release incentive associated with· 9 - OPINION AND ORDER '4 I I,.. RDAP to prisoners who possessed a firearm in connection with their offenses, U.S. and that it was reasonable for the BOP to do so. 230. 531 Thus, the issue in this proceeding is not whether the BOP has the authority under the governing statute to promulgate such a categorical exclusion, consistent with the statute. or whether Rather, the exclusion is the issue is whether the exclusion in the 2009 rule, codified at 28 C.F.R. § 550.55(b) (5), is invalid under § 706 (2) (A) of the APA because it is arbitrary and capricious. The Court previously resolved precisely this issue in Peck v. Thomas, § CV. 550.55 (b) (5) 10-709 (Mar. 30, 2011) , valid and denying habeas 28 finding relief. For C.F.R. the same reasons, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#2) is DENIED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ~ day of May, 2011. 10 - OPINION AND ORDER

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.