Castillo v. Justice , 225 F. App'x 284 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 19, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-10928
Summary Calendar
DAVID CASTILLO
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
DAVID G. JUSTICE, Warden, Big Springs Federal Prison Camp
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:06-CV-138
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David Castillo, federal inmate # 24869-077, appeals the
dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition in which
he challenged the respondent’s refusal to readmit him into the
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) drug abuse program (DAP) that could result
in a reduction of his sentence. Prisoners convicted of
“nonviolent” offenses who complete a 500-hour DAP may apply for
sentence reductions of up to one year at the discretion of the BOP
director. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e); Warren v. Miles, 230 F.3d 688, 690
(5th Cir. 2000). The BOP enjoys “broad discretion to deny sentence
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
reductions” even to inmates who successfully complete the DAP.
Rublee v. Fleming, 160 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 1998);
§ 3621(e)(2)(B). Castillo was nonetheless entitled to judicial
review of whether the BOP’s regulations or application thereof were
arbitrary and capricious or otherwise an abuse of discretion. See
id. at 215-16; see also Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 240 (2001);
Wottlin v. Fleming, 136 F.3d 1032, 1035 (5th Cir. 1998).
The district court correctly noted that certain BOP criteria
for denying DAP eligibility and early release are not arbitrary and
capricious. However, the district court made an error of law by
stating that early release is not available to “inmates whose
current offense is a felony.” Ineligible felons are those whose
felonies involved physical force, firearms or other dangerous
weapons, sexual abuse of children, or other factors set forth in
28 C.F.R. § 550.58(a)(vi).
Moreover, the scant record before the district court provided
no basis for the court to conclude that Castillo was ineligible for
the DAP. Castillo’s complaint did not specifically allege the
reasons for the BOP’s denial, nor did he submit copies of the BOP’s
decisions. The respondent did not answer the petition or offer any
summary judgment evidence. There was no evidence of record
indicating the BOP’s grounds for excluding Castillo.
The district court’s holding that there was “no support” for
Castillo’s allegation that he was eligible for readmission required
too much from Castillo’s petition. The petition satisfied federal
2
pleading rules. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242; FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).
Castillo was not given the opportunity to amend his complaint in
accord with Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 792 (5th Cir.
1986).
The judgment of the district court is vacated, and the case
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3