Opinion
Civil Action 4:22-CV-0212
07-07-2022
RUBEN C. HOLTON, Petitioner v. WARDEN J. SAGE Respondent
RAMBO, D.J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
William I. Arbuckle U.S. Magistrate Judge
Ruben C. Holton, a prolific litigant in this district, filed for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is not exercising its discretion to release him from custody pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). This is not a cognizable basis for habeas relief. Therefore, I recommend that Mr. Holton's habeas petition be summarily dismissed under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Ruben C. Holton (“Petitioner” or Mr. Holton) began this pro se, fee-paid action on February 11, 2022 by filing a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc.1). In violation of this Court's Local Rules, Mr. Holton's Petition was not written on a Standard Form, so I ordered Mr. Holton to amend his Petition. (Doc. 5). He did so on March 9, 2022, and it is now the operative pleading. (Doc. 7).
Mr. Holton, who is currently detained at Federal Correctional Institution, Schuylkill, proffers three grounds to support his Petition. (Id.). First, he argues that BOP officials are showing favoritism towards other prisoners because other inmates have been released under the CARES Act, but he has not. (Id. at ¶ 13). His second ground for relief argues that the BOP is illegally failing to exercise its discretion under the CARES Act to release him from prison. (Id.). His final ground for relief is that “[i]'ve let FCI Schuylkill know of my medical issues that are serious several times, only to be ignored.” (Id.).
As for relief, Plaintiff seeks “judicial review & review for abuse of discretion, favoritism, & exceeding its statutory authority and failing to exercise the wide discretion it's been given by the Attorney General to the CARES Act.” (Id. at ¶ 15). I will construe this as a request to be released to home detention, or to a residential reentry center.
If the inmate qualifies, under the CARES Act, an inmate can be placed in home confinement. Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 12003(b)(2).
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), a prisoner or detainee may receive habeas relief only if he “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). When a petitioner seeks immediate release from custody, the “sole federal remedy” lies in habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, (1973).
Habeas corpus petitions can be subject to summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Rule 4 provides, in pertinent part, “[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 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In making this determination, a federal habeas court may consider the petition and any attached exhibits, and may take judicial notice of state court records as well as its own. Minney v. Winstead, No. 2:12-cv-1732, 2013 WL 3279793, at *2 (W.D. Pa. June 27, 2013); see also Reynolds v. Ellingsworth, 843 F.2d 712, 714 n.1 (3d Cir. 1988). The rules governing Section 2254 petitions apply to Section 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b). Merced-Nieves v. Maiorana, No. 22-cv-552, 2022 WL 1271719, at *9 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 28, 2022).
IV. DISCUSSION
Mr. Holton's Petition should be summarily dismissed because nothing in his Petition can give him the relief he desires. In this section, I will explain why.
A. PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR HOME CONFINEMENT UNDER THE CARES ACT
This Court does not have the authority to review a request for home confinement under the CARES Act. Therefore, this ground of Mr. Holton's petition should be denied.
Before the passage of the CARES Act, the BOP had the discretion to “place a prisoner in home confinement for the shorter of 10 percent of the term of imprisonment of that prisoner or 6 months.” 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2). After the passage of the CARES Act, if the Attorney General finds that “emergency conditions will materially affect the functioning of [the BOP], the Director of the [BOP] may lengthen the maximum amount of time for which the Director is authorized to place a prisoner in home confinement under the first sentence of section 3624(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as the Director [of the BOP] determines appropriate.” Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 12003(b)(2). The Attorney General determined that such emergency conditions existed “on April 3, 2020, thereby triggering the BOP's authority to expand the amount of time that a prisoner may spend in home confinement.” United States v. Cruz, 455 F.Supp.3d 154, 159 (M.D. Pa. 2020) (quoting United States v. Sawicz, 453 F.Supp.3d 601, 603 (E.D.N.Y. 2020)).
The CARES Act gives the Attorney General and the Director of the BOP the discretion, not a mandate to place selected inmates in home confinement. Ross v. Spaulding, No. 3:21-cv-726, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220418, at *1-2 (M.D. Pa. Nov.15, 2021). So, an inmate cannot challenge the Attorney General's or the Director's determination that home confinement is not available to him. See, e.g., United States v. Guzman, No. 3:16-cr-85, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139710, at * 18 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2020) (“courts do not have power to grant relief under Section 12003 of the CARES Act” (cleaned up)); Cordaro v. Finley, No. 3:10-cr-75, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75758, at *17-18 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 29, 2020) (“the jurisdiction of a home confinement determination under the CARES Act is with the Director of the Bureau of Prisons” (cleaned up)). Habeas petitions grounded on the CARES Act are routinely summarily dismissed. See, e.g., Hussain v. Thompson, No. 21-cv-1635, 2021 WL 5298898, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2021) (summarily dismissing CARES Act habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction); Crum v. Blanckensee, No. 20-cv-3664, 2020 WL 3057799, at *6-7 (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2020) (summarily dismissing CARES Act habeas petition); Bradley v. Hemingway, No. 21-cv-10461, 2021 WL 2012839, at * 6-7 (E.D. Mich. May 20, 2021) (same). So, this ground for relief fails.
B. MR. HOLTON'S CLAIMS OF DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Holton claims that the BOP is “discriminating against me & showing favoritism towards other prisoners, within the scope of ‘CARES,' as there were several other prisoners who received ‘CARES' and had the same I.R. received or other I.R.'s and SHU-time, the only thing stopping me from receiving CARES is unclear institutional conduct.” (Doc. 7, ¶ 13). The Court believes that Mr. Holton is referring to disciplinary histories when he refers to “IRs” and “SHU time.” While the Court cannot address the BOP's decision to deny Petitioner his release under the CARES Act, the Court can act if the BOP abused its discretion. Hussain v. Thompson, No. 21-1635, 2021 WL 5298898, at *8 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2021) (citing Vasquez v. Strada, 684 F.3d 431, 434 (3d Cir. 2012)). However, in this instance, there is no evidence of favoritism, or arbitrary behavior.
Plaintiff argues that he is being denied CARES Act relief because he has a “unclear institutional [disciplinary] conduct [history].” (Doc. 7, ¶ 13). However, that is plainly contradicted by Plaintiff's administrative appeals, where he acknowledges that he has “300 and 400 series incident reports,” but he claims that it “does'nt automatically make you ineligible [for CARES Act relief] ....” (Doc. 1-1, p. 1). Mr. Holton's exhibits contradict his claims that he has “unclear” disciplinary history, when in fact, he admits it an administrative request. This undermines his claims of arbitrary BOP decision making.
Section 541.3, Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations describes series 300 and 400 acts as moderate severity and low severity, respectively.
Additionally, while Mr. Holton focuses on comparing himself to other inmates with similar disciplinary histories, that is not the only factor the BOP uses to determine CARES Act relief. To determine whether an inmate should be granted CARES Act relief, the BOP considers the totality of the circumstances and the following six non-exhaustive factors: (1) the age and vulnerability of the inmate to COVID-19; (2) the security level of the inmate's facility; (3) the inmate's conduct in prison; (4) the inmate's Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and Need (“PATTERN”) score; (5) whether the inmate has a re-entry plan; and (6) the inmate's crime and assessment of their danger to the community. Letter from the Attorney General to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Prioritization of Home Confinement as Appropriate in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic (March 26, 2020), www.justice.gov/file/1262731; Burroughs v. Bradley, No. 20-cv-2231, 2021 WL 4341117, at * 2 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2021).
Mr. Holton focuses his claims of arbitrary treatment based on comparing inmates with one of these factors, while ignoring the rest. Mr. Holton is silent on how he compares on the other five factors, not withstanding the fact that the BOP applies a totality of the circumstances test. This mows down his claims of arbitrary agency action, and this ground for relief should be denied.
C. MR. HOLTON'S ALLEGED DENIAL OF HEALTH CARE
Finally, in his last ground for relief, Plaintiff alleges that prison staff are ignoring his medical needs. That is not a cognizable habeas claim, as Plaintiff is not challenging the legality, fact, or length of his detention. E.g., Lymas v. Zickafoose, No. 14-cv-1793, 2014 WL 4659658, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 17, 2014); Loffa v. Grondolsky, No. 08-cv-5369, 2009 WL 387749, at * 5 (D.N.J. Feb. 10, 2009). If Plaintiff believes that prison officials are ignoring his medical needs, he must file a civil rights lawsuit to prosecute those claims.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Habeas petitions cannot force the Bureau of Prisons to exercise its discretion under the CARES Act. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that:
1. Mr. Holton's Petition (Doc. 7) be DENIED.
2. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to CLOSE this case.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.