Opinion
Case Number: 02-74028
July 22, 2003
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
I. Introduction
Petitioner Jose Ramirez has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is serving a 136-month sentence for 1998 convictions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan.
Petitioner also was convicted of possession of a firearm in the course of a drug offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). That conviction was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. See United States v. Ramirez, 182 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 1999).
II. Background
On June 22, 1999, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) served a notice of detainer against Petitioner with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The notice advised the BOP that an investigation had been initiated regarding Petitioner to determine whether he was subject to deportation from the United States and requested that the BOP notify INS at least ninety days prior to Petitioner's release date.
On June 23, 1999, INS issued to Petitioner a Notice to Appear alleging that Petitioner was subject to removal as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled and that he was subject to removal based upon his criminal convictions. The notice ordered Petitioner to appear before an immigration judge in Detroit at a date and time to be set.
On June 26, 2000, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in this Court, naming INS as the Respondent. Petitioner presented the following claims in that petition:
I. The detainer lodged against Petitioner by Respondent; Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), has caused Petitioner to be severely prejudiced in the conditions of his confinement in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
II. The detainer action filed by Respondent in this case is unconstitutional and therefore illegal, as Petitioner is "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' as defined by 8 U.S.C.A. § 1401(a), and is therefore not within the jurisdiction of the INS, nor subject to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Magistrate Judge Marc Goldman issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of the petition because Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and because Petitioner was in the custody of the BOP, not the INS. This Court adopted this recommendation in part, and dismissed the case on July 30, 2001, on the ground that Petitioner failed to satisfy the custody requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). The Court held that it was unnecessary to reach the issue of administrative exhaustion. Ramirez v. INS, No. 00-72857 (E.D.Mich. July 30, 2001).
Petitioner appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's decision. Ramirez v. INS, 30 Fed. Appx. 510 (6th Cir. 2002).
On March 6, 2002, Petitioner filed a Request for Administrative Remedy in which he requested that the INS detainer not be used to deny him participation in programs, benefits or transfer to a camp facility. See Request for Administrative Remedy, Attached as Exhibit 6 to Response Brief. Petitioner's request was interpreted to be for "informational purposes only" and he was provided no relief. See BP-229 Response, Attached as Ex. 7 to Response Brief. Petitioner was advised that once he completed his federal sentence and was released to INS custody, he could present his claim that he was a United States citizen. Id.
Petitioner filed appeals from this decision with the North Central Regional Office and the Central Office for Regional Appeals. Both appeals were denied. See Regional Administrative Remedy Response and National Inmate Appeals Response, attached as Exhibits 7 and 8 to Response Brief.
Petitioner filed the pending petition for a writ of habeas corpus on October 8, 2002. He presents the following claims:
I. As a direct result of the BOP's misuse/misapplication of the INS detainer notification letter filed against him, Petitioner is being forced to serve his sentence in an extremely prejudicial manner. Petitioner is being restricted in the conditions of his confinement, and is being denied program participation and benefits that would otherwise be available to him.
II. The BOP's use/application of the INS detainer notification letter filed against Petitioner is clearly contrary to the purpose and plain language of the notification letter itself, and such practice is discriminatory in its implementation and violates BOP policy against discrimination based on race/national origin.
III. Petitioner is a natural born citizen of the United States. The BOP has failed to maintain accurate records regarding Petitioner's place of birth and citizenship, has failed to amend inaccurate files, and has used incorrect information in making decisions adverse to Petitioner concerning custody and security classifications, work and housing assignments, and educational/rehabilitative programs.III. Analysis
A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus if a petitioner is being held "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Petitioner claims that he is entitled to the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus because, based upon the INS detainer, he is being denied participation in certain prison programs and benefits which would otherwise be available to him. In addition, Petitioner argues that the INS detainer is premised upon an incorrect belief that Petitioner is not a United States citizen.
Petitioner claims that his constitutional rights have been violated because the detainer caused him to be denied educational and rehabilitative programs, desirable work assignments, appropriate security level housing, and other unspecified benefits which he claims would otherwise be available to him. Congress has given federal prison officials full discretion to control prisoner classification and eligibility for rehabilitative programs, 18 U.S.C. § 4081; thus, a prisoner "has no legitimate statutory or constitutional entitlement [to these programs] sufficient to invoke due process." Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n. 9 (1976). In addition, Petitioner has no constitutional right to be housed in a particular prison, assigned a particular security classification, or provided certain educational programs. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1986). Thus, Petitioner's claims that the detainer has precluded him from participating in certain prison programs fail to establish any constitutional violation.
Petitioner also claims that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because the detainer incorrectly states that he is not a United States citizen. If Petitioner wishes to challenge the allegation contained in the Notice to Appear that he is not a United States citizen, he may do so by presenting evidence to the Immigration Judge if and when the INS commences removal proceedings.
To the extent that Petitioner seeks habeas relief because his prison records allegedly contain inaccurate information regarding his citizenship, this claim lacks merit. Under limited circumstances, a prisoner may have incorrect information expunged from his prison record.Johnson v. CCA-Northeast Ohio Correctional Center Warder, 21 Fed. Appx. 330, 331 (6th Cir. 2001). The prisoner must establish that: "1) certain information is in the prison file; 2) the information is false; and 3) the information is relied on to a constitutionally significant degree."Id. As discussed above, Petitioner has no right to participate in certain educational and rehabilitative programs, obtain desirable work assignments, or be assigned a certain security level. Thus, Petitioner fails to establish that the information has been relied on to a "constitutionally significant degree." Id.
Accordingly, the Court shall deny the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and the matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.