View
219
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
1/56
No. 12-35801
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHANE AARON ABBOTT,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
J. E. THOMAS,
Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Portland Division
OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANT
Stephen R. SadyChief Deputy Federal Public Defender
101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700
Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 326-2123
Attorney for Petitioner-Appellant
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
2/56
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Authorities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Statement of Jurisdiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Statement of the Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Nature of the Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Course of Proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Statement Of Reviewability And Standard Of Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Custody Status.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Statement of Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Statutory History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B. Regulatory Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
C. Facts Regarding Mr. Abbott. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Summary of Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
I. Because 18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(1)(C) Unambiguously Requires That All
Eligible Prisoners, As Described In The Definitional Section Of The Statute,Shall Be Provided The Opportunity To Participate In Residential SubstanceAbuse Treatment, The Court Should Invalidate The BOP Rule Excluding From
Residential Treatment Eligible Prisoners With Outstanding Warrants AndOther Impediments To Community Corrections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
i
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
3/56
II. In The Alternative, The Court Should Invalidate the BOPs Rule ExcludingFrom Residential Treatment Eligible Prisoners With Outstanding WarrantsAnd Other Impediments To Participation In Community Corrections Because
The Rule Violates 706 Of The Administrative Procedure Act. . . . . . . . . 28
III. Assuming Eligibility To Participate In Residential Treatment, The Court
Should Invalidate The BOP Rule That Disqualifies Eligible Prisoners WithOutstanding Warrants And Other Impediments To Pre-Release CommunityCorrections From Eligibility For A Sentence Reduction Under 18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(2) Of Up To One Year Because The Rule Violates 706 Of TheAdministrative Procedure Act.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
IV. The District Courts Statutory And Administrative Law Analyses Failed To
Apply Basic Rules Of Statutory Construction And Conflated TheAdministrative Law Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Statement of Related Cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Certificate of Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Certificate of Service.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
ii
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
4/56
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
FEDERAL CASES
Alabama v. Bozeman,533 U.S. 146 (2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
America Lung Association v. EPA,
134 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
America Trading Transport Co., Inc. v. United States,791 F.2d 942 (D.C. Cir. 1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Arrington v. Daniels,516 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 22, 23, 29, 30, 36, 37, 38
Bowen v. Hood,202 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2000).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 37
Burgess v. United States,553 U.S. 124 (2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Camp v. Pitts,411 U.S. 138 (1973). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council,467 U.S. 837 (1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 24, 27
City of Mesa v. FERC,993 F.2d 888 (D.C. Cir. 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Crickon v. Thomas,579 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2009).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Cross-Sound Ferry Services, Inc. v. ICC,
873 F.2d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
iii
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
5/56
Earth Island Institute v. Hogarth,494 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2007).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Honeywell International, Inc. v. EPA,
372 F.3d 441 (D.C. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Jonah R. v. Carmona,
446 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2006).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Judulang v. Holder,132 S. Ct. 476 (2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 39, 43
Lopez v. Davis,531 U.S. 230 (2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
McLean v. Crabtree,173 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 1999).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Midwater Trawlers Cooperative v. Department of Commerce,282 F.3d 710 (9th Cir. 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Mora-Meraz v. Thomas,601 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2010).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co.,463 U.S. 29 (1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA,966 F.2d 1292 (9th Cir. 1992).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Nw. Environmental Defense Ctr. v. Bonneville Power Admin.,
477 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2007).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33, 35, 38
Pac. Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,426 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2005).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 31
iv
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
6/56
Peck v. Thomas,697 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2012).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Prof'l Pilots Federation v. F.A.A.,
118 F.3d 758 (D.C. Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
SEC v. Chenery Corp.,
332 U.S. 194 (1947). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Sacora v. Thomas,628 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2010).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 16
Smith v. Rodriguez,541 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2008).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 25, 28
Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv.,100 F.3d 1443 (9th Cir. 1996).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 28
Tablada v. Thomas,533 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2008).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
United States v. Haggar Apparel Co.,526 U.S. 380 (1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Wilderness Society v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.,353 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2003).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Williams v. United States,289 U.S. 553 (1933). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
DOCKETED CASES
Montana v. Abbott,
Case No. 09-331. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
v
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
7/56
United States v. Abbott,Case No. CR 09-31-DWM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Washington v. Abbott,
Case No. 13272208. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Washington v. Abbott,
Case No. 13272209. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 18
FEDERAL STATUTES AND RULES
5 U.S.C. 706. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
18 U.S.C. 3621. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
18 U.S.C. 3624. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 8, 9
28 U.S.C. 1291. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
28 U.S.C. 2241. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 3
28 U.S.C. 2253. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Conf. Rep. to Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010,155 Cong. Rec. H13631-03 (daily ed. Dec. 8, 2009), 2009 WL 4667416.7, 8
28 C.F.R. 550.53.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 14
28 C.F.R. 550.54.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
28 C.F.R. 550.59(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
61 Fed. Reg. 25121-01 (May 17, 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Drug Treatment and Intensive Confinement Center Programs: Early Release
Consideration, 65 Fed. Reg. 80745-01 (Dec. 22, 2000).. . . . . 10, 11, 12, 33
vi
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
8/56
Drug Treatment Program: Subpart Revision and Clarification,69 Fed. Reg. 39887-02 (July 1, 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Drug Abuse Treatment Program, 74 Fed. Reg. 1892-01 (Jan. 14, 2009). . . . 13, 31
76 Fed. Reg. 58197 (Sept. 20, 2011).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Annual Report on Substance Abuse Treatment Programs
Fiscal Year 2011: Report to the House Judiciary Committee (2011). . . . . 15
Government Accountability Office,Bureau of Prisons:Eligibility and Capacity Impact Use of Flexibilities to Reduce Inmates' Time
in Prison (Feb. 2012).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
United States Department of Justice,An Analysis of Non-Violent Drug Offenders withMinimal Criminal Histories (February 4, 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 39
Richard J. Pierce, Jr., ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE,(5th ed. 2010).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 32, 37
Nora V. Demleitner, Terms Of Imprisonment: Treating The Non-Citizen Offender
Equally, 21 Fed. Sentg Rep. 174 (February 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
S. David Mitchell, Impeding Reentry: Agency And Judicial Obstacles To LongerHalfwayHouse Placements, 16 Mich. J. Race & L. 235 (2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
vii
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
9/56
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The district courts habeas corpus jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. 2241.
Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court to review the final orders denying habeas
corpus relief by 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 2253. Mr. Abbott filed timely notice of
appeal under Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure: Mr. Abbotts
petition was denied on September 28, 2012, and he filed his notice of appeal on
October 2, 2012.
1
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
10/56
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I. Where 18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(1)(C) requires that the Bureau of Prisons provideall eligible prisoners the opportunity to participate in in-prison residential
substance abuse treatment, did the BOPs rule in 2009 revoking participationin residential treatment for eligible prisoners with outstanding warrants andother impediments to participation in community corrections conflict with thestatutory mandate, thereby rendering the 2009 rule invalid?
II. In the alternative, did the Bureau of Prisons 2009 rule disqualifying a class ofstatutorily eligible prisoners those with outstanding warrants and otherimpediments to participation in community corrections from in-prisonresidential substance abuse treatment violate 706 of the AdministrativeProcedure Act where the agency failed to provide reasoning and empirical
support for the revocation of eligibility to participate in residential treatment,thereby rendering the 2009 rule invalid?
III. Assuming eligibility to participate in in-person residential substance abusetreatment, did the Bureau of Prisons rule disqualifying prisoners withoutstanding warrants and other impediments to participation in communitycorrections from eligibility for a sentence reduction of up to one year under 18U.S.C. 3621(e)(2) violate 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act because
the rule lacked reasoned support and relied on an uncorrected misinterpretation
of a comment from the American Psychiatric Association?
2
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
11/56
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the Case
This is the direct appeal from the denial of habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.
2241 entered by the Honorable Michael W. Mosman, United States District Judge
for the District of Oregon, on September 28, 2012. On appeal, the petitioner seeks
to enforce the requirement under 18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(1)(C) that the Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) provide statutorily eligible prisoners the opportunity to participate in
in-prison residential substance abuse treatment, as well as to invalidate the BOP rule
that bars such prisoners from eligibility for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
3621(e)(2) for successful completion of treatment.
Course of Proceedings
On August 26, 2011, Mr. Abbott filed a pro se motion to enjoin the BOP from
giving effect to warrants that prevented his participation in in-prison residential
substance abuse treatment and pre-release community corrections. ER 286. After
counsel was appointed, Mr. Abbott filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas
corpus on December 2, 2011, seeking to participate in residential treatment and to
qualify for a discretionary sentence reduction. ER 27. He also submitted a
supporting memorandum with exhibits attached. ER 158. The BOP filed its response
on February 7, 2012, along with declarations from BOP employees. ER 50, 119, 130.
3
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
12/56
The petitioner replied on April 12, 2012, and provided a supplement on May 9, 2012.
ER 26, 35.
On September 28, 2012, Judge Mosman filed his Opinion and Order denying
habeas corpus relief. ER 3. The same day, the judgment was entered dismissing the
case with prejudice. ER 2. The petitioner filed his timely notice of appeal on
October 2, 2012. ER 1.
Statement Of Reviewability And Standard Of Review
On this direct review of the district courts denial of a petition for writ of
habeas corpus, this Court reviews de novo the petitioners claim that the Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence. Arrington v. Daniels, 516 F.3d
1106, 1112 (9th Cir. 2008); Jonah R. v. Carmona, 446 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir.
2006);Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court also reviews
the construction of the relevant statutes de novo. Smith v. Rodriguez, 541 F.3d 1180,
1183 (9th Cir. 2008). Under 706 the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), courts
hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to [be]
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). The Court must review the agency action based solely on the
administrative record and determine whether the agency has articulated a rational
4
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
13/56
basis for its decision. Crickon v. Thomas, 579 F.3d 978, 982 (9th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008)).
Custody Status
Mr. Abbott is in BOP custody at FCI Sheridan with a projected release date of
August 3, 2014.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Prior to March 16, 2009, eligible prisoners, as defined in 18 U.S.C.
3621(e)(5), with outstanding warrants had the opportunity to address substance
abuse issues in residential treatment while serving a sentence in BOP custody. The
BOPs 2009 rule changed that rehabilitation requirement: prisoners with outstanding
warrants and other impediments to participation in pre-release community custody
were categorically barred from the program.1 These prisoners, if permitted to
participate, should be eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(2),
as well as the rehabilitative benefits of the residential program. The statutory and
regulatory history provides the relevant background for consideration of this habeas
corpus petition, which seeks to invalidate rules that categorically disqualify Mr.
1 Pre-release community custody means BOP designation to a halfway houseor home detention before the expiration of the term of imprisonment, prior to thecommencement of the term of supervised release. 18 U.S.C. 3624(c) & (e).
5
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
14/56
Abbott from needed treatment and, consequently, render him ineligible for a sentence
reduction of up to one year.
A. Statutory History
In 1990, Congress mandated that the BOP make available appropriate
substance abuse treatment for each prisoner the Bureau determines has a treatable
condition of substance addiction or abuse, including in-prison residential substance
abuse treatment. 18 U.S.C. 3621(b). In 1994, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C.
3621(e), which required the BOP beginning in 1997 to provide residential
treatment to all eligible prisoners:
[T]he Bureau of Prisons shall, subject to the availability ofappropriations, provide residential substance abuse treatment (andmake arrangements for appropriate aftercare) . . .
(C)for all eligible prisoners by the end of fiscal year 1997 and
thereafter, with priority for such treatment accorded based on an eligibleprisoners proximity to release date.
18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(1) (emphasis added). Congress defined eligible prisoner as a
person with a substance abuse problem who is willing to participate in treatment:
(B) the term eligible prisoner means a prisoner who is
(i) determined by the Bureau of Prisons to have a substanceabuse problem; and
(ii) willing to participate in a residential substance abusetreatment program; . . .
6
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
15/56
18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(5). The statute defined residential substance abuse treatment
as in-prison treatment lasting at least six months:
The term residential substance abuse treatment means a course ofindividual and group activities and treatment, lasting at least 6 months,in residential treatment facilities set apart from the general prison
population (which may include the use of pharmocotherapies, whereappropriate, that may extend beyond the 6-month period).
18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(5)(A).
Separate from the availability of residential treatment, the second subsection
of 3621(e) provided for a reduction of the period a prisoner remains in custody
of up to one year upon successful completion of the program:
(B) Period of custody. The period a prisonerconvicted of a nonviolentoffense remains in custody after successfully completing a treatment
program may be reduced by the Bureau of Prisons, but such reductionmay not be more than one year from the term the prisoner mustotherwise serve.
18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(2) (emphasis added). In subsequent appropriations for this BOP
program, Congress reiterated its intention to maximize the amount of the sentence
reduction for nonviolent offenders: To the greatest extent possible, BOP shall
prioritize the participation of nonviolent offenders in the Residential Drug Abuse
Treatment Program (RDAP) in a way that maximizes the benefit of sentence
reduction opportunities for reducing the inmate population. Conf. Rep. to
7
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
16/56
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, 155 CONG. REC. H13631-03, H13887
(daily ed. Dec. 8, 2009), 2009 WL 4667416.
Apart from substance abuse treatment, Congress also provided for pre-release
community placement to ease the transition into the community. 18 U.S.C. 3624(c).
Prior to 2009, the statute limited pre-release community custody to a maximum of six
months. 18 U.S.C. 3624(c) (repealed 2008). In 2009, Congress enacted the Second
Chance Act (SCA), which doubled the period of community corrections to twelve
months of community confinement (halfway house placement and home detention),
with home confinement limited to the last six months, or ten percent, of the sentence:
(1) In general. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall, to theextent practicable, ensure that a prisoner serving a term of imprisonmentspends a portion of the final months of that term (not to exceed 12months), under conditions that will afford that prisoner a reasonableopportunity to adjust to and prepare for the reentry of that prisoner into
the community. Such conditions may include a community correctionalfacility.
(2) Home confinement authority. The authority under thissubsection may be used to place a prisoner in home confinement for theshorter of 10 percent of the term of imprisonment of that prisoner or 6months.
18 U.S.C. 3624(c) (Supp. III 2009). The SCA directed the BOP to issue regulations
within 90 days to ensure that placement in a community correctional facility
is . . . (A) conducted in a manner consistent with section 3621(b) of this title; (B)
8
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
17/56
determined on an individual basis; and (C) of sufficient duration to provide the
greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the community. 18 U.S.C.
3624(c)(6).
B. Regulatory Background
As initially promulgated in 1995, the BOPs rules specifically provided for
early release eligibility for all persons who successfully completed the residential
program and then succeeded in either community corrections or transitional
programming within the institution. Program Statement 5330.10, Ch. 6 at 2 (May 25,
1995) (completion of all applicable transitional services programs required for
sentence reduction) (ER at 186). This meant that prisoners with immigration and
other detainers or outstanding warrants could receive in-prison residential treatment
and a sentence reduction upon successful completion of the in-prison transitional
program.
The BOP changed its rules in 1996 to require completion of community-based
treatment in order to be eligible for the 3621(e) sentence reduction. 61 Fed. Reg.
25121-01 (May 17, 1996); Program Statement 5330.10, Ch. 6 at 7.3 (May 17, 1996)
(Inmates with detainers who were participating in, or who successfully completed
a residential drug program after August 17, 1995, cannot be released directly from the
institution to their detainer by way of a 3621(e) release.). The change was
9
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
18/56
precipitated by a comment from the American Psychiatric Association suggesting that
the in-prison transitional treatment sessions should be more frequent than once a
month:
One commenter, the American Psychiatric Association, agreed that the
program was a good idea, but expressed concern about the adequacy oftransitional drug treatment programming provided at Bureau institutions.The Bureaus regulations in 28 CFR 550.59(a) required minimum
participation of one hour per month for such transitional services. TheAssociation stated that this minimum was probably not of sufficientintensity to facilitate a good outcome and recommended enhanced
psychiatric consultation and the availability of a broad array of services.
The comment by the American Psychiatric Association on the adequacyof transitional services became the basis for the second interim rule.
65 Fed. Reg. 80745-01, 80746 (Dec. 22, 2000).2 The Association did not suggest
anything about community-based treatment as a requirement for successful program
completion. Nevertheless, with no indication that the consequences for prisoners
with detainers was considered, the BOP relied on the Associations comment to
promulgate a rule requiring community corrections:
We recognize the importance of transitional services in drug treatmentprogramming and agree with the American Psychiatric Association thatan enhanced transitional program, such as is available in acommunity-based program, increases the opportunity for a good
2 The Associations comment, which became the basis for the second interim
rule, consisted of a single-page, two-paragraph letter. Letter from Melvin Shabsin,M.D., Medical Director, American Psychiatric Association, to Kathleen Hawk,Director, Bureau of Prisons (July 18, 1995), available at
http://or.fd.org/Alternatives%20to%20Incarceration/Page%2010.pdf.
10
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
19/56
outcome. Transitional services offered within the institution are aminimum of one hour per month. Even so, we believe that successfulcompletion of the program must include both the institutional and thecommunity-based component.
While we may be able to increase the availability of certain transitionalservices at an institution, we cannot duplicate within the institution the
environment of community-based transitional services (i.e., theevaluation of the inmate in conditions where the inmate is reintegratinginto the community).
We therefore further amended the interim regulations to require thatearly release be contingent upon the inmates completion of transitionalservices in a community-based program (i.e., in a Community
Corrections Center or on home confinement).
65 Fed. Reg. at 80746.
On June 21, 2000, the Association corrected the BOPs reading of its comment,
validating the concern that the comments of the APA were not accurately interpreted
by the BOP. ER 213. The Association provided a new comment to the BOP
objecting to the misuse of the prior comment and providing strong reasons why
eligibility for prisoners with detainers should continue:
We are in agreement with the Bureaus analysis that it cannot duplicatewithin a prison institution the environment of community-basedtransitional services. However, we think that transitional services can
be established within a prison setting that can improve the outcome
related to successful completion of a residential drug treatment program.It was for that reason that we advocated for more comprehensive
transitional treatment being offered in the prison setting in contrast tothe one hour per month minimum requirement.
11
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
20/56
It is our recommendation that inmates, who are ineligible for community
placement, not be excluded from participating in a residential treatment
program and subsequent transitional program within the prison for
early release considerations because we think that such participation
will result in better outcomes than no participation in such treatment.We also know clearly that eligibility for early release consideration will
significantly increase the number of inmates participating in such
treatment for obvious reasons.
Letter from Steven M. Mirin, M.D., Medical Director, American Psychiatric
Association, to Kathleen M. Hawk Sawyer, Director, Bureau of Prisons, at 2 (June 21,
2000) (ER 214) (emphasis added). The BOP made no change in response to the
Associations clarification, providing no data, analysis, or reasoning for its
conclusion regarding transitional services. Drug Treatment and Intensive
Confinement Center Programs: Early Release Consideration, 65 Fed. Reg. 80745-01,
80747 (Dec. 22, 2000) (As for the clarification by the American Psychiatric
Association, we do not believe that it is practicable to enhance transitional services
within the institution sufficiently to ensure the intended results.). The BOP gave a
similarly conclusory response to other comments:
[W]e believe that a residential treatment program requires participationin a community-based setting. Therefore, inmates who are not eligibleto be placed in a community-based program (for example, inmates with
INS detainers) are not eligible for early release.
Id. at 80748; accord Drug Treatment Program: Subpart Revision and Clarification,
69 Fed. Reg. 39887-02, 39888 (July 1, 2004). Although prisoners with detainers and
12
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
21/56
outstanding charges continued to be able to participate in RDAP, they were unable
to receive a sentence reduction under 3621(e)(2) because, under the BOPs 1996
rule, they could not complete the community corrections part of the program.
On January 14, 2009, the BOP provided notice of a final rule effective on
March 16, 2009. Drug Abuse Treatment Program, 74 Fed. Reg. 1892-01 (Jan. 14,
2009). The notice provided no mention in the summary of the changes regarding
participation in residential treatment. Id. In response to a comment regarding alien
prisoners, the BOP provided clarifying language that purported to address issues of
non-U.S. citizen inmates:
One commenter was concerned that we routinely deny access to theDrug Abuse Treatment Program (DATP) to non-U.S. citizens. The
Bureau does not deny drug abuse treatment to inmates based on theircitizenship. Instead, we offer several program options, such as a drugabuse education course or non-residential drug abuse treatment to
inmates who have drug problems but who do not otherwise meet theadmission criteria for the RDAP. These options are currently availablefor non-U.S. citizen inmates.
However, in light of the commenters misunderstanding of our proposedrule, we do make a revision to clarify our intent. Section 550.53(b)stated that, [u]pon the expiration of their sentence, inmates are eligibleto be transported only to the place of conviction or legal residencewithin the United States or its territories. We do not intend this section
to be understood to exclude non-U.S. citizens. We intended only thatparticipants must be capable of completing each of the three components
of the RDAP program (the unit-based component, follow-up services,and the transitional drug abuse treatment component) when they beginthe program. We have therefore clarified this language in the regulation.
13
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
22/56
Id. at 1893. The BOP provided no rationale for excluding persons who could not
participate in pre-release community corrections from participating in in-prison
residential treatment.
On March 16, 2009, the BOP issued final rules that altered the admission
criteria for residential treatment to completely exclude all prisoners with detainers
and outstanding charges, regardless of their status as eligible prisoners within the
meaning of 3621(e)(5):
(b)Admission Criteria. Inmates must meet all of the following criteriato be admitted into RDAP.
(1) Inmates must have a verifiable substance abuse disorder.
(2) Inmates must sign an agreement acknowledging program
responsibility.
(3) When beginning the program, the inmate must be able to
complete all three components described in paragraph (a) of thissection. This includes the critical RRC or home confinement
transfer to participate in the TDAT.
Program Statement 5330.11 2.5.1(b) (Mar. 16, 2009) (emphasis added) (ER 224-
25); 28 C.F.R. 550.53 at 2.5.1 (b) (Mar. 16, 2009). Subsection (a) of the Program
Statement provides that prisoners must complete three components: a unit-based
phase conducted in the institution; follow-up services [i]f time allows between
completion of the unit-based component of the RDAP and transfer to a community-
14
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
23/56
based program; and community-based drug abuse treatment in a community-based
program. Id. at 2.5.1.(a) (ER 224). The regulation also provided incentives for
participation in residential treatment other than potential early release. 28 C.F.R.
550.54; Program Statement 5330.11 at 2.5.15 (Mar. 16, 2009).3
Because the RDAP eligibility rules are tied to the rules pertaining to
community confinement placements, the SCA rules are also relevant to this case.
Shortly after the SCA became law, the BOP issued a memorandum explaining that
all prisoners were now eligible for community placement for up to one year. Sacora
v. Thomas, 628 F.3d 1059, 1062-65 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing statutory and
regulatory history of SCA). However, the BOP maintained its restrictive policies
from a 1998 program statement, limiting placements to no more than six months
except in extraordinary circumstances, and disqualifying prisoners with unresolved
charges or detainers. See S. David Mitchell,Impeding Reentry: Agency And Judicial
Obstacles To Longer Halfway House Placements, 16 MICH.J.RACE &L. 235, 261-63
3 Aside from incentives, the residential substance abuse program has provento be effective in assisting prisoners to avoid relapse and recidivism. Federal Bureauof Prisons, Annual Report on Substance Abuse Treatment Programs Fiscal Year
2011: Report to the House Judiciary Committee 8 (2011) (prisoners who complete
the residential program are 16 percent less likely to recidivate and 15 percent lesslikely to relapse to drug use within three years after release); accordFederal Bureauof Prisons, Federal Prison Residential Drug Treatment Reduces Substance Use and
Arrests After Release (2007).
15
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
24/56
(2011). The BOP, well after the ninety days required by Congress, promulgated a
SCA regulation that did little more than repeat SCA language, which was invalidated
for violation of the notice-and-comment provisions of the APA. Sacora, 628 F.3d at
1065 n.6. A new regulation has been proposed with no change in language, 76 Fed.
Reg. 58197 (Sept. 20, 2011), to which the federal defenders have objected on
statutory and policy grounds in a comment dated November 16, 2011. ER 279-85.
On June 24, 2010, the BOP issued a new memorandum setting forth guidance
for community placements (June 24 Memorandum). ER 241. The June 24
Memorandum reminds staff that all prisoners are eligible for transfer and that transfer
decisions must be made upon individualized consideration of the five enumerated
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3621(b). However, the memorandum does not
mention eligibility criteria for prisoners with outstanding warrants, leaving staff to
rely on the 1998 program statement in determining which prisoners in Mr. Abbotts
situation are qualified for community placement. In particular, the 1998 program
statement provides that prisoners with unresolved pending charges, or detainers,
which will likely lead to arrest shall not ordinarily participate in community
programs. Program Statement 7310.04 (Dec. 16, 1998) (ER 249).
16
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
25/56
C. Facts Regarding Mr. Abbott
Mr. Abbott was convicted of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and sentenced
on April 1, 2010, to a term of sixty months imprisonment by the Honorable Donald
W. Molloy, in the United States District of Montana, District of Montana (Missoula).
United States v. Abbott, CR 09-31-DWM (ER 254-55). At the sentencing hearing,
the court explicitly recommended that Mr. Abbott participate in the BOPs residential
substance abuse treatment program. ER 255. Because the marijuana offense was
nonviolent, Mr. Abbott was statutorily eligible for a sentence reduction of up to one
year if he successfully completed residential treatment. 18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(2).
Following the imposition of the federal sentence, Mr. Abbott was remanded to the
custody of the United States Marshal on April 1, 2010, and committed to the custody
of the BOP on June 16, 2010. ER 260.
At the time he was sentenced federally, Mr. Abbott was on supervision in three
cases. Two of the cases included bench warrants issued by Kitsap County,
Washington, in 2006, for violations of the terms of probation. Washington v. Abbott,
Case No. 13272208; Washington v. Abbott, Case No. 13272209. In the first Kitsap
County case, Mr. Abbott was sentenced to one year in jail, suspended with credit for
time served, and two years of unsupervised probation upon his conviction for assault
in the fourth degree. ER 263. Included in the judgment was the condition that Mr.
17
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
26/56
Abbott enter an anger management class within ninety days of sentencing. Id.
Although Mr. Abbott failed to comply with the anger management condition and
failed to appear for several compliance hearings, the court did not grant the
prosecutions motion to revoke probation. Instead, the court issued a bench warrant
on January 7, 2005. ER 267. The bench warrant expires on April 7, 2013. Id.
On March 8, 2004, Mr. Abbott was also sentenced to a two-year term of
supervised probation, and 365 days jail, suspended with credit for time served, upon
his plea to assault in the fourth degree. Washington v. Abbott, Case No. 13272209
(ER 269). Mr. Abbott was also ordered to obtain a chemical dependency evaluation
and comply with any recommended treatment within ninety days of sentencing. Id.
Mr. Abbott provided proof to the Kitsap County Court on January 18, 2006, that he
underwent a drug dependence evaluation, but did not show that he completed any
ordered treatment. ER 272. Shortly thereafter, the court terminated Mr. Abbotts
probation. Id. The Kitsap District Court issued a bench warrant on February 27,
2006, which expires on May 27, 2014. ER 273.
The third matter involves a probationary sentence that Mr. Abbott is serving
concurrently with the federal sentence. Mr. Abbott was prosecuted by the State of
Montana for assault on a family member for which he received a sixty month
suspended sentence on October 1, 2009. Montana v. Abbott, Case No. 09-331 (ER
18
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
27/56
274). The Montana Department of Corrections has notified the BOP through the
Interstate Agreement on Detainers that Mr. Abbotts state sanction his probationary
term will expire on June 22, 2014. ER 262. Montana explicitly advised the BOP
that it did not wish to have a detainer placed. ER 275.
On September 23, 2011, Mr. Abbott was interviewed for the residential
substance abuse treatment program. ER 276. Consistent with Judge Malloys
recommendation, Mr. Abbott established that he has a substance abuse problem and
that he is willing to participate in the in-prison residential treatment program.
Nevertheless, the BOP advised Mr. Abbott he did not qualify for RDAP:
He was interviewed today and due to pending issues was foundunqualified for the program. Per his Unit management team, he has a
pending issue that would prevent him from attending halfway house.
ER 276 (emphasis added). Mr. Abbott unsuccessfully sought BOP assistance in
resolving the outstanding warrants from Washington and Montana. ER 277-78.
Thus, Mr. Abbott, in need of both drug treatment and reentry services, agreed to
participate in appropriate programming, but is being denied the opportunity for
treatment based on outstanding state cases that, on their face, will have expired before
he is released from BOP custody.
19
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
28/56
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
In 18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(1)(C), Congress explicitly and unambiguously required
that the BOP shall provide in-prison residential substance abuse treatment for all
eligible prisoners by the end of fiscal year 1997 and thereafter. In 18 U.S.C.
3621(e)(5)(B), Congress defined eligible prisoner as any inmate with a substance
abuse problem who was willing to participate in residential treatment. If the intent
of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency,
must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. Chevron,
U.S.A., Inc. v. Natl Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984). This Court has
recognized that a prisoner is entitled to participate in residential substance abuse
treatment and aftercare if he or she is eligible under 3621(e)(5)(B). McLean v.
Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1183 n.8 (9th Cir. 1999). The unequivocal statutory
command that all eligible prisoners must be allowed the opportunity to participate
in residential substance abuse treatment foreclosed agency action that is inconsistent
with the statutory language or is an unreasonable implementation of it. United
States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U.S. 380, 392 (1999).
The 2009 regulation excluded all prisoners who cannot participate in pre-
release community corrections including prisoners like Mr. Abbott who have
outstanding warrants from participating in the in-prison residential treatment
20
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
29/56
program. Congresss use of all eligible prisoners, and its statutory definition of
eligible prisoner, demonstrate that the agency lacked discretion to eliminate those
who cannot participate in pre-release community corrections from the definition of
eligible prisoners. The denial of participation in in-prison residential substance
abuse treatment contradicts the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress, so the
rule is invalid.
In the alternative, under 5 U.S.C. 706, the BOPs promulgation of the
regulation disqualifying prisoners with outstanding warrants and other impediments
to community corrections was arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion, or not in
accordance with law underMotor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 41 (1983). The administrative record failed to articulate a rationale
for the rule and to support the action with empirical evidence. State Farm, 463 U.S.
at 43. When an agency adopts a rule, the agency is required under 706 to examine
the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a
rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. Id. (quoting
Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). The agency
must cogently explain why it has exercised its discretion in a given matter, and the
agencys explanation must be sufficient to enable a review in court to conclude that
21
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
30/56
the [agencys action] was the product of reasoned decisionmaking. State Farm, 463
U.S. at 48.
In contrast to the requirement of a rationale and empirical support, the BOP
provided no explanation for revoking the ability of all eligible prisoners to
participate in residential treatment. Since the program began, hundreds, if not
thousands, of prisoners who did not participate in pre-release community corrections
received needed and efficacious residential treatment. The BOPs administrative
record demonstrates no substantial reason such prisoners should not continue to
receive the benefits of a proven, effective treatment program. Under this Courts
controlling precedent, the failure to provide reasoning and empirical bases for the
new rule, especially in the context of a rule that appears to contradict the
congressional directives in 3621(e)(1)(C), requires that the regulation be
invalidated. Crickon v. Thomas, 579 F.3d 978, 982 (9th Cir. 2009); Arrington v.
Daniels, 516 F.3d 1106, 1114 (9th Cir. 2008).
Assuming that the rules barring Mr. Abbott from participating in residential
treatment are invalid, the rule foreclosing a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
3621(e)(2) is also invalid under 706. As in Crickon andArrington, this Court
upheld the statutory authority of the BOP to categorically limit eligibility for the
sentence reduction in McLean. As in Arrington and Crickon, the question of
22
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
31/56
compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act remained undetermined after
McLean. The administrative record regarding the disqualification for a sentence
reduction for those who cannot participate in pre-release community corrections fails
to meet the State Farm test. The BOP relied upon a comment by the American
Psychiatric Association, even though the Association subsequently afterMcLean
confirmed that the BOP had misinterpreted its comment. The BOPs cursory
response to the Associations repudiation of the BOPs interpretation never addressed
empirical data or fiscal and fairness issues in the administrative record, failing to even
mention the drastic consequences of the rule for prisoners with detainers and
outstanding warrants. Because the only expert support for the rule was debunked,
and no other rationale or data supported the rule, the disqualification for the potential
sentence reduction of up to one year is invalid underArrington and Crickon.
ARGUMENT
I. Because 18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(1)(C) Unambiguously Requires That All
Eligible Prisoners, As Described In The Definitional Section Of The
Statute, Shall Be Provided The Opportunity To Participate In
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment, The Court Should Invalidate The
BOP Rule Excluding From Residential Treatment Eligible Prisoners
With Outstanding Warrants And Other Impediments To Community
Corrections.
In its March 2009 rules excluding a large class of eligible prisoners from
participating in residential substance abuse treatment, the BOP took a position
23
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
32/56
inconsistent with, and an unreasonable application of, an unambiguous statute:
Congress directed phase-in of residential substance abuse treatment culminating in
the requirement that all eligible prisoners have the opportunity to participate in
such treatment in 1997 and thereafter. 18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(1)(C). The word all
means what it says. WEBSTERS THIRDNEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 54 (2002)
(every member or individual component of: each one of used distributively with
a plural noun or pronoun to mean that a statement is true of every individual
considered).4 Eligible prisoner is defined in the statute itself to include Mr.
Abbott, a person with substance abuse issues who is willing to participate in
residential treatment. See Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124 (2008)
([s]tatutory definitions control the meaning of statutory words . . . in the usual
case.) (quotingLawson v. Suwannee Fruit & S.S. Co., 336 U.S. 198, 201 (1949)).
Because Congress has spoken directly to the issue, the BOP has no authority
but to follow the plain language of the statutes: If the intent of Congress is clear,
that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to
the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural
4See BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 74 (6th ed. 1990) (defining all as the
whole of or every) (subsequent editions of this dictionary did not include adefinition of all);see also Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553, 572 (1933) (Theuse of all in some cases, and its omission in others, cannot be regarded asaccidental.).
24
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
33/56
Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984); accord Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d
1180, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 2008); Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 966 F.2d
1292, 1297 (9th Cir. 1992) (On questions of statutory construction, courts must carry
out the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.). Congress required that every
eligible prisoner be provided access to RDAP: [In order that] every prisoner with
a substance abuse problem have the opportunity to participate in appropriate
substance abuse treatment, the Bureau of Prisons shall, subject to the availability of
appropriations, provide residential substance abuse treatment (and make
arrangements for appropriate aftercare) . . .for all eligible prisoners by the end of
fiscal year 1997 and thereafter. 18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(1) (emphasis added).
Mr. Abbott is an eligible prisoner because the statute defines eligible
prisoner as a person with a substance abuse problem who is willing to participate in
treatment. 18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(5)(B). Mr. Abbott unambiguously meets these
statutory requirements the federal sentencing court recognized his substance abuse
problem and recommended his participation in residential substance abuse treatment.
Mr. Abbott has demonstrated his willingness to participate in in-prison residential
treatment by obtaining a judicial recommendation for residential treatment and by
applying for the treatment program. Mr. Abbott is statutorily entitled to be provided
access to the available residential substance abuse treatment.
25
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
34/56
Mr. Abbotts ability to participate in pre-release community corrections is
irrelevant to his opportunity to participate in in-prison residential treatment. There
is nothing in the statute requiring community corrections placement in order to
complete RDAP:
Any prisoner who, in the judgment of the Director of the Bureau ofPrisons, has successfully completed a program of residential substanceabuse treatment provided under paragraph (1) of this subsection, shallremain in the custody of the Bureau under such conditions as the Bureaudeems appropriate. If the conditions of confinement are different fromthose the prisoner would have experienced absent the successful
completion of the treatment, the Bureau shall periodically test theprisoner for substance abuse and discontinue such conditions ondetermining that substance abuse has recurred.
18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(2)(A). Nothing in the statute ties successful completion of
residential treatment to participation in pre-release community corrections.
By only admitting prisoners who can participate in community-based treatment
programs, rather than giving them the alternative of institutional follow-up treatment,
the BOP violated the statute. This Court recognized the mandatory nature of
3621(e)(1)(C) inMcLean. In that case, the Court, faced with a statutory challenge,
upheld the categorical ineligibility of prisoners with detainers for the 3621(e)(2)
sentence reduction. In doing so, the Court explicitly noted that prisoners were
statutorily entitled to participate in residential treatment even if they were ineligible
for the sentence reduction:
26
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
35/56
We also reject Appellants contention that they are eligible for sentencereduction because they meet the definition of eligible prisoner
provided in 18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(5)(B). A prisoner is merely entitled toparticipate in residential substance abuse treatment and aftercare if he
or she is eligible under 3621(e)(5)(B). Whether a prisoner isstatutorily eligible for sentence reduction, however, depends on whetherhe or she meets the requirements of 3621(e)(2)(B).
McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1183 n.8 (1999) (emphasis added).
Despite the mandatory shall of the statute, the BOP does not provide
Mr. Abbott residential treatment to which he is entitled as an eligible prisoner, in
violation of the plain meaning of the statute. See Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146,
153 (2001) (When Congress specifies an obligation and uses the word shall, this
denomination usually connotes a mandatory command.) (citingAnderson v. Yungkau,
329 U.S. 482, 485 (1947)). Congressional intent may be determined by traditional
tools of statutory construction, and if a court using these tools ascertains that
Congress had a clear intent on the question at issue, that intent must be given effect
as law. Wilderness Socy v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 353 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th
Cir. 2003) (en banc) (citations omitted), amended by 360 F.3d 1374 (9th Cir. 2004).
When the statute is neither silent nor ambiguous, the agencys construction is given
no deference. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843. Additionally, no deference is due if the
agency ignores factors Congress explicitly required the agency to take into account.
Earth Island Inst. v. Hogarth, 494 F.3d 757, 765 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Sw. Ctr. for
27
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
36/56
Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv., 100 F.3d 1443, 1448 (9th Cir. 1996)). The
regulation excluding eligible prisoners from RDAP conflicts with 3621(e)(1)(C)s
required provision of the opportunity for residential treatment for all eligible
prisoners, and is therefore invalid. Rodriguez, 541 F.3d at 1187.
II. In The Alternative, The Court Should Invalidate the BOPs Rule
Excluding From Residential Treatment Eligible Prisoners With
Outstanding Warrants And Other Impediments To Participation In
Community Corrections Because The Rule Violates 706 Of The
Administrative Procedure Act.
Even if the statutes allowed for the categorical disqualification of an eligible
prisoner from participation in residential treatment, the BOP rules are invalid
because the BOP failed to provide reasoning, analysis, and data in support of
revoking eligibility to participate in residential treatment for those unable to
participate in pre-release community corrections. Under 706 of the APA, courts
hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A).
In State Farm, the Court listed factors that would invalidate rules under 706:
Normally, an agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agencyhas relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider,entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered anexplanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the
28
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
37/56
agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a differencein view or the product of agency expertise.
463 U.S. at 43. In declaring the BOPs rule on eligibility for a 3621(e) sentence
reduction invalid, this Court listed the types of support expected for a disqualifying
rule:
The BOP gave no indication of the basis for its decision. It did notreference pertinent research studies, or case reviews. It did not describethe process employed to craft the exclusion. It did not articulate any
precursor findings upon which it relied. It did not reveal the analysisused to reach the conclusion that the categorical exclusion was
appropriate. Indeed, the administrative record is devoid of anysubstantive discussion of the rationale underlying the BOPs exercise ofits discretion.
Crickon v. Thomas, 579 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2009). Section 706 of the APA
requires that the agency articulate a rationale when exercising discretion. Id. at 982
(citingArrington v. Daniels, 516 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th Cir. 2008));seeJudulang v.
Holder, 132 S. Ct. 476, 479 (2011) (When an administrative agency sets policy, it
must provide a reasoned explanation for its action. That is not a high bar, but it is an
unwavering one.).
The BOP articulated no rationale or support for the rule change in this case.
The BOP presented no empirical studies regarding the efficacy of residential
treatment for those who cannot participate in pre-release community corrections. The
BOP did not address why Congresss direction to allow participation by all eligible
29
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
38/56
prisoners should be superseded. The BOP presented no policy positions based on
empirical findings or any substantive discussion of the rationale for the rule. The rule
did not even address the sole statutory basis for denying the treatment opportunity
subject to the availability of appropriations. 18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(1)(C). As in
Crickon, [t]he administrative record is devoid of any substantive discussion of the
rationale underlying the BOPs exercise of discretion. 579 F.3d at 985.
Where an administrative agency acts in the absence of an articulated rationale,
the final rule is invalid under 706 of the APA. Arrington, 516 F.3d at 1114;see
SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196-97 (1947) (It will not do for a court to be
compelled to guess at the theory underlying the agencys action . . . .);Pac. Coast
Fedn of Fishermens Assn v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 426 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th
Cir. 2005) ([T]he RPA cannot be sustained . . . by reliance on the agencys unstated
assumptions in the final rule or arguments presented in litigation.); Midwater
Trawlers Coop. v. Dept of Commerce, 282 F.3d 710, 720 (9th Cir. 2002) (The
difficulty with the published justification for the rule is, of course, that it is devoid of
any stated scientific rationale.); City of Mesa v. FERC, 993 F.2d 888, 898 n.7 (D.C.
Cir. 1993) (finding that lay ruminations cannot substitute for agency reasoning);
Cross-Sound Ferry Servs., Inc. v. ICC, 873 F.2d 395, 400 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
(explaining that a court will not guess at the theory underlying the agencys action);
30
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
39/56
Am. Trading Transp. Co., Inc. v. United States, 791 F.2d 942, 948-49 (D.C. Cir.
1986) (holding agency action invalid where there was no evidence that the agency
considered a statutory goal).
It is a basic principle of administrative law that the agency must
articulate the reason or reasons for its decision. Although a decisionof less than ideal clarity may be upheld if the agencys path mayreasonably be discerned, we cannot infer an agencys reasoning frommere silence . . . . Rather, an agencys action must be upheld, if at all,on the basis articulated by the agency itself. The agency is obligatedto articulate[ ] a rational connection between the facts found and thechoices made.
Pac. Coast, 426 F.3d at 1090-92 (citations omitted and alterations in original). An
agency must explain its action with sufficient clarity to permit effective judicial
review, and the failure to provide the necessary clarity for judicial review requires
that agency action be vacated. Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142-43 (1973);Am. Lung
Assn. v. EPA, 134 F.3d 388, 392-93 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
The absence of reasoning or a rationale followed from the failure of the
notices summary, or any other part of the notice, to advise that the 2009 rule changed
the participation of eligible prisoners. 74 Fed. Reg. 1892-01. The notice did not
provide sufficient factual detail and rationale to permit meaningful comment.
Honeywell Intl, Inc. v. EPA, 372 F.3d 441, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2004); see 2 Richard J.
Pierce, Jr., ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE, 11.4 at 1023 (5th ed. 2010) (An
31
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
40/56
agency may not, for example, depart from a prior policysub silentio . . . [a]nd of
course the agency must show that there are good reasons for the new policy.).
The violation of 706 is graver in this case than in Crickon, where this Court
considered a rule categorically disqualifying non-violent offenders with certain prior
convictions from the 3621(e)(2) sentence reduction. 579 F.3d at 988-89. In
Crickon, the Court noted that the BOP rules had the effect of discouraging prisoners
from participating in residential treatment, even though the intent of the statute was
to encourage prisoners to enroll and to complete the rigorous program. Id. at 986-87.
Because the BOP rule limiting eligibility was inconsistent with congressional intent
to encourage participation, the rule was arbitrary and capricious and invalid under the
APA. Id. at 987. The BOPs pre-release community corrections requirement for
participation in residential treatment is even worse than the rule invalidated in
Crickon. The rule not only discourages participation in residential treatment by
foreclosing early release, it prohibits the participation of statutorily eligible
prisoners with no adequate rationale for failing to implement the statute as written.
32
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
41/56
III. Assuming Eligibility To Participate In Residential Treatment, The Court
Should Invalidate The BOP Rule That Disqualifies Eligible Prisoners
With Outstanding Warrants And Other Impediments To Pre-Release
Community Corrections From Eligibility For A Sentence Reduction Under
18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(2) Of Up To One Year Because The Rule Violates 706 Of The Administrative Procedure Act.
The 2009 rule disqualifying prisoners with detainers or outstanding warrants
from participation in residential substance abuse treatment was preceded by a separate
rule disqualifying those prisoners from the early release incentive. SeeCrickon, 579
F.3d at 985 (regulation limiting eligibility for 3621(a) sentence reduction had no
effect on participation because the drug abuse treatment program is open to all
inmates with a documented need and interest in the program) (citing 65 Fed. Reg.
at 80745, 80748 (Dec. 22, 2000)). The BOP based the early release disqualification
on a comment from the American Psychiatric Association that only suggested the
BOP offer more extensive transitional services. 65 Fed. Reg. at 80746. Although the
Association did not suggest that the BOP require a community-based component, the
BOP initially relied on the Associations suggestion to deny early release to prisoners
with detainers. 65 Fed. Reg. at 80748.
The misinterpretation of the Associations comments to exclude statutorily
eligible prisoners invalidates the rule under 706(2)(A). See Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v.
Bonneville Power Admin., 477 F.3d 668, 684 (9th Cir. 2007) (hereinafterNEDC)
33
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
42/56
(because agency action was based on a misinterpretation of legislative history, the
rule was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law under 706). In NEDC, the
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) transferred functions from the BPA-funded
Fish Passage Center (FPC) to two private contractors based on a statement in a
congressional committee report. Id. at 672. The legislative historys indication that
the BPA should no longer fund the FPC was not incorporated into any actual
legislation. Id. at 681-82. The Court found that the BPA erred in believing it was
bound by the legislative history and, thus, its actions violated 706 of the APA. Id.
at 691. In reaching this conclusion, the Court rejected the agencys post hoc
rationalizations that it had engaged in considered rulemaking and, instead, found that
the administrative record did not show that BPA, as required by State Farm,
considered the relevant facts and used a rational process to decide to transfer the
functions of the FPC to other entities. Id. at 688.
Just as the BPA actions based on an erroneous interpretation of its authority
were invalid under 706(2)(a), the BOP rule is invalid because it is based on an
erroneous interpretation of the American Psychiatric Association comment. Further,
the BOPs one-sentence response to the American Psychiatric Associations
repudiation of the BOPs interpretation of its comment failed to meet 706 standards.
As in Crickon, the BOPs response to comments, this time the Associations protest
34
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
43/56
of the misuse of its first comment, was inadequate under 706: the reasoning
articulated by the BOP is cursory and non-responsive to the comments. 579 F.3d at
985. [T]he BOP never identified, explained, or analyzed the factors it considered
in crafting the categorical exclusion. Id.
In NEDC, this Court invalidated the BPAs decision to transfer one of its
functions, not because the decision itself was unreasonable, but because the decision
was not the product of rational decisionmaking as required by State Farm. NEDC,
477 F.3d at 689-90. Applying State Farm, this Court held that the BPA possibly
may have the ability to rationally conclude that the continued operation of the FPC
in its present state was no longer in the public interest, but only after giving due
weight to the Acts requirement that its action be consistent with what the Council
said in the Program and Plan, and the purposes of the Northwest Power Act. NEDC,
477 F.3d at 690. Until and unless the agency undertook such an analysis, and
provided an explanation for the decision reached, the rule was invalid. 477 F.3d at
690. Additionally,post hoc rationales proffered by the agency during the litigation,
however compelling they might be, could not save the rule. Id. at 690 n.18 (citing
Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).
35
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
44/56
As this Court observed inArrington, it is not the ultimate decision that is of
concern in an APA analysis, but the process of the rulemaking itself in choosing
whether to include or exclude prisoners from early release eligibility:
Although either choice in all likelihood would have withstood judicial
scrutiny, the Bureau offered no explanation for why it exercised itsdiscretion to select one rather than the other. The agencys lack ofexplanation for its choice renders its decision arbitrary and capricious.Although agencies enjoy wide discretion in fashioning regulationsgoverning statutes that they are charged with administering, section 706requires that they articulate a rationale when they exercise thatdiscretion. This is not an empty requirement . . . . This failure renders
the Bureaus final rule invalid under the APA.
Arrington, 516 F.3d at 1114 (citations omitted). Where the BOP misinterpreted a
comment upon which it based its rule change, the cursory response to the
commenters correction fell far short of the minimum required for reasoned
rulemaking:
If a comment criticizes in detail some characteristic of the agencysproposed rule, or a factual predicate for the agencys proposed rule, andthe agency retains that characteristic in the final rule without including
in its statement of basis and purpose a relatively detailed response to thatcriticism, a reviewing court is likely to hold the rule unlawful on thegrounds that the statement of basis and purpose is inadequate and therule is arbitrary and capricious. Similarly, if a comment couples detailedcriticism of a proposed rule with a suggested alternative to the proposal
that seems to eliminate the source of the criticism of the proposed ruleas its final rule without discussing the alternative suggested in the
comment, a court is likely to conclude that the statement of basis andpurpose is inadequate and the rule is arbitrary and capricious.
36
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
45/56
Ronald J. Pierce, Jr., 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE, 7.4 at 594 (5th ed. 2010);
see also Profl Pilots Fedn v. FAA, 118 F.3d 758, 763 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (agency must
provide rationale response to comments that are relevant and significant). The
American Psychiatric Associations second comment provided both a detailed
criticism and a suggested alternative, neither of which was addressed in the BOPs
cursory response.
The APA question under 706 is distinct from the statutory question
considered inMcLean. This Court has held that, as a matter of statutory construction,
the BOP has the authority to create a categorical early release disqualification based
on detainers. McLean, 173 F.3d at 1184. The statutory ruling is irrelevant to the
question of APA compliance. Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 244 n.6 (2000) (finding
the rule substantively reasonable and reserving the Administrative Procedure Act
question); Crickon, 579 F.3d at 987 n.9 (9th Cir. 2009) ([T]he BOPs choice to
exclude inmates with the specified prior conviction is a proper exercise of its
discretion under the statute. However, under the APA, the BOP had a duty to provide
some rationale for its choice, beyond merely stating that it was exercising its
discretion.);Arrington, 516 F.3d at 1115 (A rule may ultimately be reasonable in
substance (as the Bowen court concluded that the 1997 interim rule was) but
nevertheless fail APA review if the agency does not comply with its procedural
37
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
46/56
responsibility to articulate in the administrative record the rational basis upon which
it relied in promulgating the rule.). This is especially true because the American
Psychiatric Associations repudiation of the BOPs interpretation of the Associations
comment post-datedMcLean.
An agency rule is also arbitrary and capricious if the agency entirely failed to
consider an important aspect of the problem. State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43; accord
Arrington, 516 F.3d at 1112-13; NEDC, 477 F.3d at 687-88. The administrative
record reflects no indication that any thought was given to prisoners with detainers,
who are ineligible for community placement, and who under the new rule could not
successfully complete the program and receive a sentence reduction. See Nora V.
Demleitner, Terms Of Imprisonment: Treating The Non-Citizen Offender Equally, 21
Fed. Sentg Rep. 174, 176-77 (February 2009) (referencing the advantages in prison
management, cost savings, and decreased recidivism that were lost due to the
exclusion of non-citizens from residential treatment). Thus, the BOP provided no
consideration of the loss of sentence reduction eligibility, and consequent fiscal
consequences, from the new rule.
At the time 3621(e) was enacted, the Department of Justice recognized that
non-violent offenders were being over-incarcerated. United States Department of
Justice,An Analysis of Non-Violent Drug Offenders with Minimal Criminal Histories,
38
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
47/56
at 2-3 (February 4, 1994) (finding that low-level drug offenders with minimal
criminal histories, especially non-citizens, receive longer sentences than needed for
deterrence and protection of society). Congress recently explicitly reiterated the
importance of 3621(e) sentence reductions in addressing over-crowding in federal
prisons operating at 138% of capacity. Supra at 7-8. Cost is an important factor for
agencies to consider in many contexts,Judulang, 132 S. Ct. at 490, including the
present case. The BOP has estimated that, if non-citizens with immigration detainers
were eligible for the 3621(e) sentence reduction, there would be a cost savings of
about $25 million every year. Government Accountability Office,Bureau of Prisons:
Eligibility and Capacity Impact Use of Flexibilities to Reduce Inmates Time in
Prison, at 32 n.63 (Feb. 2012).5 Even though 3621(e)(1) explicitly references
subject to the availability of appropriations, the BOP never even mentioned the
huge fiscal effect of the new rule, never mind considering the lost opportunity to
reduce over-incarceration for low-level nonviolent offenders.
The rule is also unfaithful to statutory text. As found in Crickon, Congress
intended an incentive to increase participation in residential treatment. 579 F.3d at
980. In contrast to the litigation regarding nonviolent offenses, the community
corrections rule has no basis in the statute. Cf.Peck v. Thomas, 697 F.3d 767, 776
5Available atwww.gao.gov/assets/590/588284.pdf
39
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
48/56
(9th Cir. 2012) (upholding reissued regulations regarding BOP discretion to
categorically exclude prisoners based on public safety).
The statute does not provide a basis for exclusion of all prisoners with
outstanding warrants and detainers. Other than explaining that prisoners with
detainers are eligible for the 40-hour non-residential drug treatment program and that
it does not intend to discriminate against non-citizens, the BOP offered no
explanation why an institutionally-based transition program consisting of more than
one hour per month, as suggested by the American Psychiatric Association, was not
a feasible alternative. Most critically, the BOP did not meaningfully respond to the
Associations comment that prisoners ineligible for community placement should
participate in the residential program. The BOP violated 706 by excluding all
prisoners with outstanding charges, including eligible prisoners, from residential
treatment and by barring them from eligibility for the sentence reduction incentive.
IV. The District Courts Statutory And Administrative Law Analyses
Failed To Apply Basic Rules Of Statutory Construction And
Conflated The Administrative Law Questions.
The district courts decision rested on several errors of analysis related to
statutory construction, the scope of the decision in McLean, and the 706
requirement of an articulated and reasoned basis for agency action.
40
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
49/56
First, the court failed to apply the basic rules of statutory construction. With
no supporting precedent, the court ignored the mandatory language of the relevant
statutes. Instead, the court relied on inferences from an annual report requirement and
an aftercareprovision that applies after the term of imprisonment expires.
The opinion below relied on the subject matter of annual reports required by
18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(3)(B). The court referenced the statutes mandate that the BOP
provide an annual report including a detailed description of each substance abuse
program, residential or not as demonstrating ambiguity regarding Congresss intent.
ER 17. The court also found reporting requirements regarding how eligibility is
determined to be significant. ER 18. But the BOPs broad discretion to determine
who has a documented substance abuse problem,Mora-Meraz v. Thomas, 601 F.3d
933 (9th Cir. 2010), is entirely separate from the mandatory language requiring that
all eligible prisoners be provided the opportunity to participate in residential
substance abuse treatment. No rule of statutory construction supports invocation of
reporting requirements to contradict mandatory statutory directives.
The court also erred in its reliance on aftercare provisions because that word
is the subject of a definitional section that contradicts the courts analysis. ER 17, 21.
Rather than creating ambiguity regarding in-prison treatment, the word aftercare
refers to community-based treatment when the participant leaves the custody of the
41
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
50/56
Bureau of Prisons. 18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(5)(C). Neither the annual reports nor the
BOPs designation authority change Congresss unambiguous directive that, for
prisoners with substance abuse problems as defined by the BOP, the appropriate
treatment for willing prisoners includes in-prison residential programming. The
district court failed to apply and to follow basic rules of statutory construction that
establish that use of the words shall and all eligible prisoners, as well as the
context from the phase-in of 3621(e)(1)(C), demonstrate that Congress did not leave
the participation of eligible prisoners up to further categorical restriction.
Second, the court misplaced reliance onMcLean by conflating the statutory and
APA challenges and by extending the holding from sentence reduction to
participation in residential treatment. The district court ignored Mr. Abbotts
challenge to the procedural flaws in the BOPs rule-making. Instead, the district
court confused this Courts ruling that the BOP had statutory authority under
3621(e)(2) to limit access to the sentence reduction with a ruling that the BOP rules
were promulgated with adequate reasoning and empirical support in the
administrative record under 706 of the APA. ER 20-21. This error was
compounded by the failure to note that the American Psychiatric Associations
rejection of the BOPs interpretation of the Associations initial comment occurred
afterthis Courts decision inMcLean. The district court conflated consideration of
42
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
51/56
the reasonableness of a statutory construction with the unresolved Administrative
Procedure Act questions based on the underlying administrative record.
Third, the district court found that the BOPs designation and sentence
reduction authority rendered the rule procedurally valid. ER at 23-24. Without
addressing the failure to articulate a reason or rationale or supporting data, the court
simply accepted the BOPs conclusory claims: APA rulemaking does not require the
BOP explain or justify the self-explanatory admission criteria that requires prisoners
be eligible for all required components to be admitted into the program. ER 24. Not
only does such circular reasoning eviscerate the APAs protections, the reliance on
self-explanatory cannot be reconciled with a generation of precedent based on State
Farm requiring the transparency of articulated reasoning and supporting analysis.
The policies underlying State Farm are at their peak under the facts of this case: the
BOP stated that the initial comment by the American Psychological Association
became the basis for the challenged rule, then ignored the Associations correction
of the BOPs misinterpretation and advocacy against the rule. Rather than giving the
agency the blank check of self-explanatory rules, this Court should hold the BOP
to the 706 standard that the Supreme Court described as not a high bar, but it is an
unwavering one. Judulang, 132 S. Ct. at 479.
43
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
52/56
Conclusion
Mr. Abbott is being denied the opportunity to participate in rehabilitative
programming that Congress required be provided to him as a statutorily eligible
prisoner and that his sentencing judge recommended as part of his sentence. The
Court should declare that the BOPs bar on participation in residential treatment is
invalid, that Mr. Abbott was categorically eligible for the 3621(e) sentence
reduction, that the BOP should treat Mr. Abbott as qualified for residential treatment,
and that he should receive such other equitable relief as law and justice require.
Respectfully submitted: February 25, 2013.
/s/ Stephen R. SadyStephen R. SadyAttorney for Petitioner-Appellant
44
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
53/56
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHANE AARON ABBOTT, ))
Petitioner-Appellant, ) CA No. 12-35801)
v. ))
J. E. THOMAS, )Warden, )
)
Respondent-Appellee.)
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
I, Stephen R. Sady, undersigned counsel of record for petitioner-appellant,
Shane Abbott, state pursuant to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Rule 28-2.6, that
I know of no other cases that should be deemed related.
Dated: February 25, 2013.
/s/ Stephen R. SadyStephen R. Sady
Attorney for Petitioner-Appellant
45
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
54/56
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHANE AARON ABBOTT, )
)Petitioner-Appellant, ) CA No. 12-35801
)v. )
)J. E. THOMAS, )
Warden, )
)Respondent-Appellee.)
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B), I certify that:
1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation because it contains
9,957 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because it has
been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Word Perfect X4, 14-point
Times New Roman font.
46
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
55/56
Dated: February 25, 2013.
/s/ Stephen R. Sady
Stephen R. SadyAttorney for Petitioner-Appellant
47
7/28/2019 Abbott v Thomas: Bureau of Prisons (BOP) unlawfully executed his sentence
56/56
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify
Recommended