Williams v. Pettiford
| Decision Date | 10 September 2007 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. 6:06-1831-PMD-WMC. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | Nathaniel WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. Michael PETTIFORD, Warden; Harley Lappin, Respondents. |
Barbara Murder Bowens, U.S. Atty's Office, Columbia, SC, for respondents.
This matter is before the court upon Petitioner Nathaniel Williams's ("Williams" or "Petitioner") petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Record contains a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of a United States Magistrate Judge made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge's R & R recommends that Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment be denied and Petitioner's habeas writ be granted. A party may object, in writing, to an R & R within ten days after being served with a copy of the R & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Respondents filed timely objections to the R & R.
Williams is currently incarcerated at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, with a projected release date of August 28, 2009, via Good Conduct Time ("GCT") release. On December 16, 2004, he was sentenced to a 77-month term of incarceration in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
At the time he filed his petition, Williams was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution ("FCI") in Bennettsville, South Carolina. He named Michael Pettiford, Warden of FCI Bennettsville, and Harley Lappin, Director of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), as the Respondents in his petition. In his § 2241 petition, Williams attacks the validity of the BOP's regulations regarding whether the BOP has the sole authority to transfer him to a Community Confinement Center or home confinement at any time during his incarceration. (See Pet. at 1.)1 Petitioner seeks an order directing the BOP to consider him for home confinement or CCC placement for greater than six months.
On September 5, 2006, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment. By Order filed September 6, 2006, Petitioner was advised of the summary judgment dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion. On September 25, 2006, the Magistrate Judge granted Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time, giving Petitioner through October 31, 2006, to respond to Respondents' motion. On September 29, 2006, Petitioner filed his Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss as well as a Motion to Amend his petition. On October 27, 2006, the Magistrate Judge granted Petitioner's Motion to Amend, giving Petitioner through November 17, 2006, to file his amended petition. Williams, however, did not file an amended petition.
On July 25, 2007, Magistrate Judge William Catoe issued an R & R in which he recommended denying Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment and granting Williams's habeas petition. (See R & R at 10.) On August 14, 2007, Respondents filed objections to the R & R.
This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's R & R to which a specific objection is registered and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that R & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). After a review of the entire record, the R & R, and Respondents' objections, the court finds the Magistrate Judge fairly and accurately summarized the facts and applied the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the court adopts the R & R and fully incorporates it into this Order.
In the R & R, Magistrate Judge Catoe states, "While no controlling authority exists in the Fourth Circuit, this court finds that the 2005 regulations are invalid..." (R & R at 10.) Respondents object to this determination, asserting that while several Courts of Appeals have held the 2005 regulations invalid, "in each of the decisions, at least one Circuit Judge has dissented, finding the regulation to be a valid categorical exercise of the agency's discretion." (Objections at 1.) According to Respondents, "[t]he fact that each Circuit opinion has a well-reasoned dissent suggests that this issue is still open for critical debate and consideration." (Objections at 2.) Furthermore, Respondent asserts that while the Fourth Circuit has not resolved this issue, "several District Courts, both in and out of the circuit, have agreed with the dissenting Circuit Judges, holding that the categorical exercise of discretion in the ... [regulations] is appropriate." (Objections at 2.) Before reviewing the merits of Respondents' arguments, the court will first review the language of the statutes and regulations at issue in this case.
Title 18, United States Code, section 3621 provides, in relevant part,
(b) Place of imprisonment. — The Bureau of Prisons shall designate the place of the prisoner's imprisonment. The Bureau may designate any available penal or correctional facility that meets minimum standards of health and habitability established by the Bureau, whether maintained by the Federal Government or otherwise and whether within or without the judicial district in which the person was convicted, that the Bureau determines to be appropriate and suitable, considering —
(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 was determined to be warranted; or
(B) recommending a type of penal or correctional facility as appropriate; and
(5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(2) of title 28.
In designating the place of imprisonment or making transfers under this subsection, there shall be no favoritism given to prisoners of high social `or economic status. The Bureau may at any time, having regard for the same matters, direct the transfer of a prisoner from one penal or correctional facility to another. The Bureau shall 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. § 3621(b). Furthermore, § 3624(c) states,
(c) Pre-release custody. — The Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent practicable, assure that a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment spends a reasonable part, not to exceed six months, of the last 10 per centum of the term to be served under conditions that will afford the prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the prisoner's re-entry into the community. The authority provided by this subsection may be used to place a prisoner in home confinement. The United States Probation System shall, to the extent practicable, offer assistance to a prisoner during such pre-release custody.
18 U.S.C. § 3624(c).
According to Respondents, prior to December 13, 2002, the BOP "followed a practice of placing prisoners in pre-release [CCC's] for up to the last six months of their sentences, regardless of the length of their sentences." (Mot. to Dismiss at 4.) However, on December 13, 2002, the BOP "concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) did not provide the BOP the authority to place prisoners in community pre-release confinement for any period exceeding that set forth in the statute." (Mot. to Dismiss at 4.) The BOP concluded that placement in community confinement did not constitute imprisonment and that "placement by the BOP in such confinement is clearly limited to a period not to exceed six months, of the last ten percentum of the term to be served." (Mot. to Dismiss at 4.)
On August 18, 2004, the BOP published a proposed rule document for notice and comment in the Federal Register. See Community Confinement, 69 Fed.Reg. 51213-01 (proposed Aug. 18, 2004) (to be codified at 28 C.F.R. pt. 570). On January 10, 2005, the BOP published a final rule document in the Federal Register. See Community Confinement, 70 Fed.Reg. 1659-01 (Jan. 10, 2005) (). These regulations became effective February 14, 2005, and are codified at 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20 and 570.21 (the "2005 regulations"). These regulations provide,
§ 570.20 What is the purpose of this subpart?
(a) This subpart provides the Bureau of Prisons' (Bureau) categorical exercise of discretion for designating inmates to community confinement. The Bureau
designates inmates to community confinement only as part of pre-release custody and programming which will afford the prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for re-entry into the community.
(b) As discussed in this subpart, the term "community confinement" includes Community Correction Centers (CCC) (also known as "halfway houses") and home confinement.
§ 570.21 When will the Bureau designate inmates to community confinement?
(b) We may exceed these time-frames only when specific Bureau programs allow greater periods of community confinement, as provided by separate statutory authority for example, residential substance abuse treatment program (18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(A)), or shock incarceration program (18 U.S.C. § 4046(c)).
Based on the BOP's new regulation, Williams will be eligible for CCC placement on February 28, 2009. (See Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. 1.) Williams, however, asks the court to order the BOP to consider him for placement in a CCC without regard to the 2005 regulations. (See Petition at 1-2.) As the Magistrate Judge noted, the question before the court is whether the 2005 regulations, which categorically...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Honey v. U.S.
... ... the appeal cannot be reinstated unless a new notice of appeal is timely filed." 5 Am.Jur.2d Appellate Review § 290 (2005) (citing Williams v. United States, 553 F.2d 420, 422 (5th Cir.1977) (finding that, after the appellants filed a timely notice of appeal but dismissed the appeal ... ...