PAULINE K. FROMAN, No. 23081-045, Petitioner,
WARDEN CROSS, and WARDEN MEAD, Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge.
This matter is now before the Court relative to Petitioner Froman's request for emergency relief and, because of intertwined considerations, for preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts.
Petitioner Pauline K. Froman is currently incarcerated in the Greenville Federal Prison Camp, located within the Southern District of Illinois. Froman's Request for Emergency Injunctive Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) is construed as both a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant Section 2241, and a motion for emergency injunctive relief. She challenges the prison administration's failure to place her in a Residential Reentry Center ("RRC") or on home confinement for sufficient time to reintegrate into society, as contemplated by the Second Chance Act of 2007, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c). Froman was initially slated for release as of May 29, 2013, but on May 20, 2013, she was informed the date had been moved back to October 6, 2013- less than a month before her projected November 1, 2013, release date. From Froman's perspective, her immediate release into home confinement is mandated under Section 3624(c), and if not mandated, required in order to give full effect to the statute's purpose.
1. Guiding Legal Standards
Froman's motion for emergency injunctive relief is effectively for a mandatory preliminary injunction which requires the non-moving party to take affirmative action. See Graham v. Medical Mutual of Ohio, 130 F.3d 293, 295 (7th Cir. 1997). Such motions are viewed cautiously and are issued sparingly. Id. (citing Jordan v. Wolke, 593 F.2d 772, 774 (7th Cir. 1978)). "To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show 1) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, and 2) no adequate remedy at law and irreparable harm if preliminary relief is denied.'" Graham, 130 F.3d at 295 (quoting Mil-Mar Shoe Co., Inc. v. Shonac Corp., 75 F.3d 1153, 1156 (7th Cir. 1996) (additional citations omitted)).
Relative to the preliminary review of the petition, Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district court judge, "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner." Rule 1(b) of those Rules gives this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas corpus cases.
A petition seeking habeas corpus relief is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when a petitioner is challenging the fact or duration of confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 490 (1973); Waletzki v. Keohane, 13 F.3d 1079, 1080 (7th Cir. 1994). A 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 reentry of that prisoner into the community. Such conditions may include a community correctional facility.
Section 3624(c)(2) further provides: "The authority under this subsection may be used to place a prisoner in home confinement for the shorter of 10 percent of the term of imprisonment of that prisoner or 6 months." Id.
In exercising its discretion under Section 3624(c), 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 ...