Bowen, et al. v. Hood, et al.
| Decision Date | 04 February 2000 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 98-36190,No. 99-35041,99-35063,No. 99-35433,99-35659,No. 99-35177,No. 99-35425,No. 99-35176,No. 99-35659,99-35629,99-35425,99-36281,No. 99-35090,99-35424,No. 99-36281,99-35175,98-36224,No. 99-35424,No. 99-35419,99-35598,No. 99-35174,No. 98-36279,No. 98-36274,No. 99-35636,98-36274,No. 99-35420,No. 99-35080,No. 99-35672,99-35631,No. 99-35421,No. 98-36190,99-35422,99-35035,99-35430,No. 99-35417,No. 99-35627,No. 99-35175,99-35419,99-35421,98-36223,98-36273,99-35090,No. 99-35063,No. 99-35631,No. 99-35432,99-35432,99-35637,99-35627,99-36280,No. 99-35035,No. 99-35422,No. 99-35629,No. 98-36273,99-35415,99-35416,No. 99-35157,99-35082,No. 99-35415,98-36191,99-35433,99-35080,No. 99-35637,No. 99-35598,99-35157,99-35040,No. 99-35232,99-35418,99-35232,99-35417,No. 99-35040,99-35672,99-35177,No. 99-35081,No. 99-35416,No. 98-36223,99-35431,No. 98-36224,No. 98-36277,99-35041,No. 98-36191,99-35174,No. 99-35418,99-35176,98-36277,98-36279,99-35420,No. 99-35082,No. 99-36280,99-35081,No. 99-35431,No. 99-35430,99-35636,98-36190,s. 98-36190 |
| Citation | 202 F.3d 1211 |
| Parties | (9th Cir. 2000) PAUL N. BOWEN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ROBERT A. HOOD, <A HREF="#fr1-1" name="fn1-1">1 Warden, FCI, Sheridan, Respondent-Appellant. PAUL N. BOWEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ROBERT A. HOOD, <A HREF="#fr1-1" name="fn1-1">1 Warden, FCI, Sheridan, Respondent-Appellee. DONALD SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ROBERT A. HOOD, <A HREF="#fr1-1" name="fn1-1">1 Warden, FCI, Sheridan, Respondent-Appellant. DONALD SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ROBERT A. HOOD, <A HREF="#fr1-1" name="fn1-1">1 Warden, FCI, Sheridan, Respondent-Appellee. LAMAR TOLLIVAR, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ROBERT A. HOOD, <A HREF="#fr1-1" name="fn1-1">1 Warden, FCI, Sheridan, Respondent-Appellant. LAMAR TOLLIVAR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ROBERT A. HOOD, <A HREF="#fr1-1" name="fn1-1">1 Warden, FCI, Sheridan, Respondent-Appellee. LANCE ASHTON JONES, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ROBERT A. HOOD, <A HREF="#fr1-1" name="fn1-1">1 Warden, FCI, Sheridan, Respondent-Appellant. LANCE ASHTON JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ROBERT A. HOOD, <A HREF="#fr1-1" name="fn1-1">1 Warden, FCI, Sheridan, Respondent-Appellee. WILLIAM DALE HOLLINGSWORTH, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ROBERT A. HOOD, <A HREF="#fr1-1" name="fn1-1">1 Warden, FCI, Sheridan, Respondent-Appellant. WILLIAM DALE HOLLINGSWORTH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ROBERT A. HOOD, <A HREF="#fr1-1" name="fn1-1">1 Warden, FCI, Sheridan, Respondent-Appellee. GUY D. TAKETA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ROBERT A. HOOD, <A HREF="#fr1-1" name="fn1-1">1 Warden, FCI, Sheridan, Respondent-Appellant. GUY D. TAKETA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ROBERT A. HOOD, <A HREF="#fr1-1" name="fn1-1">1 Warden, FCI, Sheridan, Respondent-Appellee. STEVEN WINKELMAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ROBERT A. HOOD, <A HREF="#fr1-1" name="fn1-1">1 Warden, FCI, Sheridan, Oregon Respondent-Appellant. STEVEN WINKELMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ROBERT A. HOOD, <A HREF="#fr1-1" name="fn1-1">1 Warden, FCI, Sheridan, Oregon Respondent-Appellee. WALLACE WARD PAYNE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ROBERT A. HOOD, <A HREF="#fr1-1" nam |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] COUNSEL: Stephen R. Sady, Chief Deputy Federal Public Defender, Portland, Oregon, for petitioners-appellees Gavis Group and for petitioners-appellees-cross appellants Bowen Group.
Thomas M. Gannon, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the respondent-appellant-cross appellee.
Before: Edward Leavy, Ferdinand F. Fernandez, and Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges.
I. INTRODUCTION
Robert A. Hood, Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution, Sheridan, Oregon, appeals the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief, 28 U.S.C. S 2241, to a number of prisoners.2 Each of them had been subjected to the Bureau of Prisons' determination that certain categories of prisoners would not be granted early release pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. S 3621(e)(2)(B). One group, which we will call the Gavis Group,3 had not even been provisionally admitted to a substance abuse treatment program at the time that the Bureau adopted its exclusionary categories. When the Bureau adopted its exclusionary categories, the other group, which we will call the Bowen Group,4 had received provisional eligibility for early release after completing a substance abuse treatment program, but had not yet entered a program.
The Bowen Group has cross appealed because, after issuing its judgment, the district court issued a clarifying order, which, as the group's members see it, reduced their relief below that first intended.
We reverse the district court as to the Gavis Group, but affirm as to the Bowen Group.
II. BACKGROUND
This case revolves around a program created by Congress for the purpose of providing substance abuse treatment to prisoners. It directed the Bureau to "make available appropriate substance abuse treatment for each prisoner the Bureau determines has a treatable condition of substance addiction or abuse." 18 U.S.C. S 3621(b). In order to give at least some prisoners an added incentive to participate in a substance abuse treatment program, Congress also provided that"[t]he period a prisoner convicted of a nonviolent offense remains in custody after successfully completing a treatment program may be reduced by the Bureau of Prisons, but such reduction may not be more than one year from the term the prisoner must otherwise serve." 18 U.S.C. S 3621(e)(2)(B).
For some time, the Bureau has been of the belief that a prisoner whose crime of conviction involved the possession, carrying, or use of a firearm should be ineligible for early release. At first, the Bureau implemented that belief by decreeing that those possessors of firearms had committed crimes of violence, and, therefore, had not been "convicted of a nonviolent offense." Id. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minotti v. Whitehead, Civil Case No. RWT-08-1418.
...exercise of the BOP's discretion to determine the eligibility of prisoners for early release under § 3621(e). See Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211, 1220 (9th Cir.2000); Bellis v. Davis, 186 F.3d 1092, 1095 (8th Cir.1999). Reaching the contrary result were the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits. See Wa......
-
Magnin v. Beeler, Civil Action No. 98-5842 (D. N.J. 8/25/2000)
...for early release. Martin is therefore of no relevance to the present case. Id. at 1095 (emphasis added); see also Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211, 1220 (9th Cir. 2000)(upholding regulation and Program Statement as permissible interpretation of statute); Harrison v. Lamanna, No. 4:99CV2901, 20......
-
Muolo v. Quintana
...1134 (11th Cir.1999). The Eighth and Ninth Circuit determined that it did. Bellis v. Davis, 186 F.3d 1092 (8th Cir.1999); Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir.2000). The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Bellis (sub nom. Lopez v. Davis, 529 U.S. 1086, 120 S.Ct. 1717, 146 L.Ed.2d 640 (200......
-
Magnin v. Beeler
...for early release. Martin is therefore of no relevance to the present case. Id. at 1095 (emphasis added); see also Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211, 1220 (9th Cir.2000)(upholding regulation and Program Statement as permissible interpretation of statute); Harrison v. Lamanna, No. 4:99CV2901, 200......
-
U.S. Appeals Court: DRUG/ALCOHOL.
...v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2000). Dozens of federal prisoners brought separate actions for habeas corpus relief challenging the decision of the federal Bureau of Prisons that prisoners whose crime of conviction involved possession, carrying or use of a firearm were ineligible for earl......
-
U.S. Appeals Court: CLAIMS.
...v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2000). Dozens of federal prisoners brought separate actions for habeas corpus relief challenging the decision of the federal Bureau of Prisons that prisoners whose crime of conviction involved possession, carrying or use of a firearm were ineligible for earl......