Opinion
Case No. CV 18-5176-GW (JEM)
08-16-2018
DONALD WAYNE VARNADO, Petitioner, v. WARDEN LANGFORD, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDINGS
On June 12, 2018, Donald Wayne Varnado ("Petitioner"), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("Petition" or "Pet.").
For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the Petition should be summarily dismissed.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") and is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Lompoc, California. (Pet. at 1.) Petitioner's expected release date is September 21, 2022. (See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/.)
PETITIONER'S CLAIMS
Petitioner asserts two claims: (1) "the language used in [Petitioner's presentence investigation report] to describe an escape conviction from 04/09/78 is too vague," which has resulted in him "being classified incorrectly"; and (2) Petitioner is "being housed at a medium security facility when [he] actually should be housed (if scored correctly) at a low security facility." (Pet. at 3.)
DISCUSSION
I. Petitioner Does Not Have a Due Process Right in His Location of Confinement or Classification Status
It is well established that inmates do not have a due process liberty interest in the location of their confinement. See Grayson v. Rison, 945 F.2d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir.1991) (due process is not implicated in federal prisoner's transfer to less desirable unit); see also Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976) (due process not implicated by prison officials' decision to place prisoner in a particular institution).
Likewise, inmates do not have a due process liberty interest in their classification status. See Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976); Arevalo v. Booker, 234 F. App'x 814, at *1 (9th Cir. 2007) (rejecting federal prisoner's claim that his classification and placement in an enhanced security program violated due process on the basis that "[p]rison officials" exercise of discretion to assign a security classification to an inmate does not violate the inmate's liberty interests); Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987) (concluding that prisoner has no constitutional right to particular classification status).
Even if, as Petitioner claims, the BOP has erroneously characterized his 1978 escape from the Costa Mesa City Jail, which has resulted in an incorrect security classification (see Pet. at 3), Petitioner cannot establish a due process violation. See Palmigiano v. Mullen, 491 F.2d 978, 980 (1st Cir. 1974) ("There is no federally-protected right to a particular classification nor even to an error-free decision . . . . 'The Constitution does not assure uniformity of decisions or immunity from merely erroneous action, whether by the courts or the executive agencies . . . .'") (quoting Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 15 (1944) (Frankfurter, J., concurring)); see also Woodson v. Ives, 2013 WL 5442180, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2013); Medina-Alvarez v. United States, 2013 WL 799620, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2013); Hill v. Sanders, 2012 WL 680273, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2012).
Accordingly, the Petition should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim.
II. The Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to Entertain Petitioner's Challenge to His Classification Status
Congress has delegated to the BOP the authority to make all inmate placement determinations. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(b), 3624(c); see also Sacora v. Thomas, 628 F.3d 1059, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2010). The BOP is authorized to designate the place of an inmate's imprisonment and to direct the transfer of a prisoner from one penal or correctional facility to another "at any time." Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180, 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2008).
Section 3621(b) affords the BOP considerable discretion, using the factors Congress has enumerated therein, to determine an inmate's placement. See id. Congress also has expressly authorized the BOP to classify and segregate federal prisoners "according to the nature of the offenses committed, the character and mental condition of the prisoners, and such other factors as should be considered in providing an individualized system of discipline, care, and treatment of the persons committed to such institutions." See 18 U.S.C. § 4081.
BOP Program Statement ("PS") 5100.08 sets out policies and procedures regarding BOP inmate classification, designation, and redesignation, including inmate transfer procedures. One of the stated objectives of PS 5100.08, is that "[e]ach inmate will be placed in a facility commensurate with their security and program needs through an objective and consistent system of classification which also allows staff to exercise their professional judgment[.]"
Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review "any determination, decision, or order" made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621-3625. Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 2011). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3625, entitled "Inapplicability of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)," Congress specified that "[t]he provisions of sections 554 and 555 and [the judicial review provisions] 701 through 706 of [the APA] do not apply to the making of any determination, decision, or order" under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621-3625. See 18 U.S.C. § 3625. Thus, Congress has explicitly precluded judicial review of the BOP's housing decisions.
Although the Ninth Circuit has found that a court may review BOP regulations implementing § 3621 to determine whether they are consistent with the statute, see Rodriguez, 541 F.3d at 1187-88, the BOP's individualized, discretionary determinations concerning where to house a particular federal prisoner are not subject to judicial review, however the claim is presented. See Reeb, 636 F.3d at 1227 ("To find that prisoners can bring habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the BOP's discretionary determinations made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621 would be inconsistent with the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3625."); see also United States v. Dragna, 746 F.2d 457, 458 (9th Cir. 1984) (district court lacks jurisdiction to decide the location of a defendant's incarceration; that decision rests solely with the executive branch and is delegated to the BOP).
Here, Petitioner appears to challenge the BOP's placement determination under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) and P.S. 5100.08. (See Pet. at 2.) It is clear under 18 U.S.C. § 3625 that the Court lacks jurisdiction to review this claim. Accordingly, the Petition should be dismissed without prejudice.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition be summarily dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim and lack of jurisdiction. DATED: August 16, 2018
/s/_________
GEORGE H. WU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE