Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ford v. Cross

October 8, 2010

SPENCER ALLEN FORD, PETITIONER,
v.
WARDEN JAMES CROSS,*FN1 RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

I. Introduction and Background

Now before the Court is Petitioner Spencer Allen Ford's habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(Doc. 1). Ford alleges that the Warden is violating his constitutional rights by failing to make an individual determination concerning his placement in a Residential Re-entry Center ("RRC"). Respondent Cross opposes the petition (Doc. 15). Based on the following, the Court denies the petition and dismisses with prejudice this cause of action.

Ford is a 25-year old male incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution, Greenville, Illinois ("FCI Greenville"). He was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan for endangering human life while attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1) and 858. On September 19, 2006, United States District Judge Bell sentenced Ford to a 66 month term of imprisonment and two years supervised release. His projected release date is June 21, 2010, via good conduct time release. Ford has been approved for RRC placement to commence on December 28, 2010. Ford claims that his constitutional rights have been violated by placing him in RRC for a period of 180-days rather than the full 12 months and that an individualized determination was not made concerning his placement in the RRC.

II. Legal Standard

A petition seeking habeas corpus relief is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when a defendant is challenging the fact or duration of confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 490, 93 S.Ct. 1827 (1973); Waletzki v. Keohane, 13 F.3d 1079, 1080 (7th Cir. 1994). The writ of habeas corpus may be granted where the defendant is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) ("the Second Chance Act,") the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has the authority to place inmates in community confinement facilities during the final portion of their sentences for up to 12 months. Specifically:

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent practicable, ensure that a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment spends a portion of the final months of that term (not to exceed 12 months), under conditions that will afford that prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the re-entry of that prisoner into the community. Such conditions may include a community correctional facility. Id.

The language of the Act clearly establishes that inmates are not entitled to the full 12 months of placement in a halfway house. Section 3624(c) requires only that "to the extent practicable," the BOP must allow an inmate to spend "a portion of the final months" of his term under conditions that will allow him to prepare and adjust for re-entry into the community.Id. The language is discretionary, and there is simply no guarantee to placement for the maximum amount of time available. The amount of time to be allocated to each inmate is left to the considerable discretion of the BOP. See Singleton v. Smith, 2010 WL 744392, at *1 (C.D. Ill. Feb 26, 2010); Pence v. Holinka, 2009 WL 3241874, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 29, 2009); Sessel v. Outlaw, 2009 WL 1850331, at *4 (E.D. Ark. 2009); Woods v. Wilson, 2009 WL 2579241, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2009); Daraio v. Lappin, 2009 WL 303995, at *6 (D. Conn. Feb. 9, 2009) (".the BOP retains discretion under the Second Chance Act to decide whether and when an inmate should be placed at an RRC.").

In exercising this discretion, the BOP must make its decision on an individual basis, and in a manner consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), in order to ".provide the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the community.."

28 C.F.R. § 570.22. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) lists the following factors to be considered in the BOP's evaluation:

(1) the resources of the facility contemplated;

(2) the nature and circumstances of the offense;

(3) the history and characteristics of the prisoner;

(4) any statement by the court that imposed the sentence-(A) concerning the purposes for which the sentence to imprisonment ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.