Opinion
Case No.: 3:16-CR-00250-GPC
07-28-2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JUAN MIRANDA, Defendant.
ORDER:
(1) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE BUREAU OF PRISONS TO ADMINISTER THE SECOND CHANCE ACT APPROPRIATELY
[ECF No. 88]
(2) RECOMMENDING THAT THE BUREAU OF PRISONS GRANT DEFENDANT'S REQUESTS REGARDING PLACE OF IMPRISONMENT
On August 18, 2016, Defendant Juan Miranda was sentenced by this Court to twenty-four (24) months imprisonment for having pled guilty to conspiracy to import methamphetamine. ECF No. 86 at 1. On October 7, 2017, the U.S. Marshal delivered Miranda to the Taft Correctional Institution, located in the Eastern District of California, which is where he is currently serving out his sentence. Id.
On May 22, 2017, Miranda filed the instant motion entitled "Motion to Compel the Bureau of Prisons to Administer The Second Chance Act of 2007 Appropriately" ("Motion to Compel"). ECF No. 88. In it, Miranda requests that the Court alter his terms of imprisonment by granting him (1) four months in a halfway house; (2) three months of home confinement; (3) and "Understanding why the Administrative Remedy Process will not be tangible for this Petitioner." ECF No. 88 at 3. The Government filed an opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, arguing that the Court does not have the authority to grant Miranda the relief he seeks. ECF No. 90. At most, the Government argues, the Court may "recommend the requested sentence," but it may not order the Bureau of Prisons to do so. Id. For the following reasons, and based upon the Court's review of the law, DENIES Miranda's Motion to Compel but nonetheless RECOMMENDS, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4), that the Bureau of Prisons grant Miranda the placement he seeks.
LEGAL STANDARD
"After a district court sentences a federal offender, the Attorney General, through the BOP (Bureau of Prisons), has the responsibility for administering the sentence." U.S. v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3621(a) ("a person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment . . . shall be committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons until the expiration of the term imposed")). Section 3621 "gives the BOP . . . the administrative responsibility to identify the facility in which a federal prisoner will serve out the sentence imposed by the district court." Reynolds v. Thomas, 603 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010), abrogated on other grounds by Setser v. U.S., —U.S. —, 132 S. Ct. 1463 (2012).
Although "Section 3621(b) gives the Bureau of Prisons discretion to designate the facility" for a prisoner's sentence, the BOP is required to consider a number of factors "when it exercises [that] discretion." Rodriguez v. Copenhaver, 823 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2016). Those factors include: (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, either (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. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (emphasis supplied).
Notwithstanding § 3621(b)(4), however, "a sentencing court has no authority to order that a convicted defendant be confined to a particular facility, much less placed in a particular treatment program; those decisions are within the sole discretion of the Bureau of Prisons." U.S. v. Williams, 65 F.3d 301, 307 (2d Cir. 1995) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)). This is also true of requests to be placed in a community correctional facility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(5) ("Any order, recommendation, or request by a sentencing court that a convicted person serve a term of imprisonment in a community corrections facility shall have no binding effect on the authority of the Bureau under this section to determine or change the place of imprisonment of that person".)
A halfway house is an example of a "community correctional facility." U.S. v. Qadri, 2017 WL 1011663, *1-2 (D. Haw. Mar. 15, 2017).
Section 3624(c) of the statute provides detail on when it is appropriate for the Bureau of Prisons to place a prisoner in a community correctional facility or in home confinement.
(c) Prerelease Custody.—18 U.S.C. § 3624(c). Prisoners, therefore, are eligible for a maximum of twelve months in a facility such as a halfway house and no more than six months in home confinement.
(1) In general.— 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.
(2) Home confinement authority.— 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.
DISCUSSION
Motions filed be pro se plaintiffs, like Defendant Miranda, "are to be liberally construed." Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). This means that a court must hold pro se pleadings to a "less stringent standard[ ] than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" no matter how "inartfully pleaded" the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). This same principle also applies to motions from prisoners. U.S. v. Seesing, 234 F.3d 456, 462 (9th Cir. 2001) ("Pro se complaints and motions from prisoners are to be liberally construed.").
Miranda has asked the Court to compel the Bureau of Prisons to administer the 18 U.S.C. § 3621 factors fairly and to grant him the following relief: (1) alter his terms and location of imprisonment so that he may spend four months in a halfway house and three months in home confinement and (2) "Understanding why the Administrative Remedy Process will not be tangible for this Petitioner." ECF No. 88.
The Court, however, does not have the authority to order the relief that Miranda seeks. See Williams, 65 F.3d at 307. Although Miranda was sentenced by this Court, he is now a prisoner in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, and the BOP, not the district court, has the exclusive responsibility of administering his sentence. Wilson, 503 U.S. at 335. Miranda's motion correctly points to a number of legal authorities that dictate how the BOP must carry out this responsibility. For instance, Miranda emphasizes that the BOP must consider the five factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) before making a determination about a prisoner's place of imprisonment. Miranda moreover points out that this statute requires the BOP to engage in "individualized determinations" concerning a prisoner's placement. See Muniz v. Sabol, 517 F.3d 29, 36 (1st Cir. 2008). Yet while it is true that these legal authorities bind the Bureau of Prisons, it is still not within this Court's power to order the BOP to reach a certain decision regarding Miranda's place of imprisonment. See Williams, 65 F.3d at 307; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(5). The Court, therefore, must DENY Miranda's Motion to Compel.
This is not to say, however, that the sentencing court cannot offer any opinion as to where a prisoner should be placed. As the text of 18 U.S.C. § 3621 makes evident, the BOP must consider "any statement by the court that imposed the sentence" that "recommend[s] a type of penal or correctional facility as appropriate."
Accordingly and to the extent that the BOP must take into consideration any recommendation made by the sentencing court both in "designating the place of imprisonment or making transfers," 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), the Court hereby RECOMMENDS, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4), that Miranda (1) spend 2.4 of his last seven months of imprisonment in home confinement, i.e., the maximum time allowable by 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) and (2) spend the remaining days of those seven months in a halfway house or other community corrections facility, not necessarily in that order. See, e.g., Qadri, 2017 WL 1011663, at *2 (making recommendation to BOP regarding defendant's place of imprisonment pursuant to § 3621(b)(4)). The Court's recommendation is based upon Miranda's need for additional job training support, including computer literacy, in order to obtain a job in San Diego, CA upon his release; his intent to use the time at a halfway house to "break the chain of association with his prior circle of friends and associates"; and his work ethic, as demonstrated by the fact that he has worked full-time for the BOP while imprisoned and has completed classes in small business, writing a business plan, and commercial driving. ECF No. 88 at 4-7.
Although Miranda has asked the Court to grant him three months in home confinement, the Court notes that the maximum time allowable in home confinement is "the shorter of 10 percent of the term of imprisonment of that prisoner or 6 months." 8 U.S.C. § 3634(c). Accordingly, and because Defendant's sentence was only for twenty-four months, the maximum time allowable that Miranda may spend in home confinement is 2.4 months. --------
/ / / /
/ / / /
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 28, 2017
/s/_________
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
United States District Judge