United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
THE COURT TO ORDER THE REQUIRED/NEEDED DRUG TREATMENT (RDAP)
MATTER is before the Court on the Petition for the Court to
Order the Required/Needed Drug Treatment (RDAP) Program filed
by Petitioner, Gerald Archuleta, on August 2, 2019. (Doc. 1).
The Court will dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction.
LAW REGARDING THE RDAP PROGRAM
directed the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to “provide
residential substance abuse treatment ... for all eligible
prisoners.” 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(1)(C). The statute
defines an “eligible prisoner” as one “who
is (i) determined by the Bureau of Prisons to have a
substance abuse problem; and (ii) willing to participate in a
residential substance abuse treatment program [.]”
Id. § 3621(e)(5)(B). An inmate must meet
certain criteria to be eligible for the residential drug
abuse treatment program, including (1) having a verifiable
documented drug abuse problem, (2) having no serious mental
impairment which would substantially interfere with or
preclude full participation in the program, (3) signing an
agreement acknowledging his/her program responsibility, (4)
ordinarily, being within thirty-six months of release, and
(5) the security level of the residential program institution
must be appropriate for the inmate. 28 C.F.R. §
550.56(a) (2000); Wilson v. Kastner, 385 Fed.Appx.
855, 856-58 (10th Cir. 2010).
RDAP is a program implemented by the BOP pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3621(e)(1), which directs the BOP to provide
substance abuse treatment for inmates with substance abuse
problems. Under the Act, the BOP is required to conduct an
individualized assessment of each inmate to determine if the
inmate should be placed in an RDAP. Upon successful
completion of the RDAP, the BOP may, in its discretion,
reduce the sentence of a prisoner convicted of a nonviolent
felony pursuant to § 3621(e)(2), which states:
“(2) Incentive for prisoners' successful completion
of treatment program--(B) Period of custody.--The period a
prisoner convicted of a nonviolent offense remains in custody
after successfully completing a treatment program may be
reduced by the Bureau of Prisons, but such reduction may not
be more than one year from the term the prisoner must
18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). See also Lopez v.
Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (“When an eligible
prisoner successfully completes drug treatment, the Bureau
thus has the authority, but not the duty, both to alter the
prisoner's conditions of confinement and to reduce his
term of imprisonment.”). The Act, however, does not
guarantee RDAP placement, but only directs the BOP to
consider eligibility of an inmate for an RDAP program.
Wilson v. Kastner, 385 Fed.Appx. at 856-58.
OF PETITIONER ARCHULETA'S CLAIMS
record does not indicate that Archuleta has requested or
received a decision of the BOP for RDAP treatment. Instead,
he asks the Court to Order the BOP to enter Petitioner
“into the 500 Hour RDAP (Drug Abuse Program) with its
Community Out Patient Aftercare.” (Doc. 1 at 2). BOP
regulations do not authorize a prisoner to seek a
post-sentencing order for entry into the RDAP program. To the
contrary, a district court may not encroach upon the
BOP's authority to decide the terms of a prisoner's
confinement, including participation in BOP programs, during
the pre-release period. See Prows v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 981 F.2d 466, 469-70 (10th Cir. 1992);
United States v. Laughlin, 933 F.2d 786, 789 (9th
Cir.1991). Archuleta's request is premature until the BOP
has acted on a request for RDAP treatment. See Garza v.
Davis, 596 F.3d 1198, 1203 (10th Cir.2010); Reyna v.
Ledezma, 415 Fed.Appx. 926, 927 (10th Cir. 2011). Only
after the BOP has acted on Petitioner's request may a
district court review the BOP's decision. Wilson v.
Kastner, 385 Fed.Appx. 855, 859 (10th Cir. 2010). The
Court will dismiss Archuleta's Petition without prejudice
to a habeas corpus petition for judicial review of the
BOP's decision on a proper § 3621(e) request.
18 U.S.C. §§ 3621 and 3624 govern the duration and
conditions of imprisonment by the BOP. A petition raising
issues related to the execution of a sentence rather than its
validity and must be filed in the district where the prisoner
is confined.” Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164,
166 (10th Cir. 1996); see Brace v. United States,
634 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2011). A 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition filed in the District of incarceration is a proper
means to challenge BOP's decision regarding eligibility
for RDAP placement. See, e.g., Manni v.
English, 727 Fed.Appx. 530, 532 (10th Cir. 2018). To the
extent Archuleta seeks habeas relief under those statutes, he
may only proceed against his immediate physical custodian in
the District of his incarceration. Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, 452 U.S. 426, 442-43 (2004). Although Archuleta
was sentenced in this Court, his Petition indicates that he
is incarcerated at the FCI La Tuna. (Doc. 1 at 1). Although
FCI La Tuna may have some facilities physically located
within the geographic boundaries of the State of New Mexico,
for judicial purposes, FCI La Tuna is in the Western District
of Texas. See
www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/lat/. Therefore, this
Court lacks jurisdiction to grant him relief on his Petition
under § 362.
IS ORDERED that the Petition for the Court to Order
the Required/Needed Drug Treatment (RDAP) Program filed by
Petitioner, Gerald Archuleta, on August 2, 2019, (Doc. 1) is