United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
GEORGE ALEXANDER WATSON, Reg. No. 70398-019, Petitioner,
v.
WALTER WOODS, Respondent.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION [1]
This
case is before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition
for writ of habeas corpus filed by George Alexander Watson.
At the time he filed the instant petition, Watson was
incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp in Montgomery,
Alabama, serving a 37-month sentence followed by 3 years of
supervised release imposed upon him on November 9, 2016 by
the Unites States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, upon his conviction for wire fraud. Doc 1 at 1; Doc.
12-1 at 2-4. In this petition, Watson contends the Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) violated his due process and equal protection
rights by deeming him ineligible for placement in the
Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP) and thereby denying him
the ability to potentially obtain an early release pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3261(e). For the reasons that follow,
this court concludes that Watson is not entitled to habeas
corpus relief.
II.
RELEVANT FACTS
Watson
began serving his sentence in the custody of the BOP on
January 9, 2017 and was released from his term of
incarceration on August 23, 2019. Doc. 29-1 at 2. It is
undisputed that Watson participated in the non-residential
drug abuse program (NRDAP) while incarcerated in federal
custody. On February 27, 2017, after assessment of relevant
documents, a Drug Treatment Specialist (DTS) with the BOP
determined Watson was not eligible for participation in the
Residential Drug Abuse Program. Doc. 12-3 at 7.[2] Specifically, the
specialist found as follows:
Inmate WATSON's records [in his] central file do not
appear to provide verification establishing a pattern of
substance abuse or dependence within the 12 months prior to
his arrest for his current instant offense. Per the PSI and
SENTRY documentation, Mr. WATSON was detained in November
2016. Inmate Watson['s] PSR indicates he first consumed
alcohol at the age of 6 and periodically consumed a sip of
beer. He consumed one beer daily from his mid 20s to age 32
and one alcoholic beverage monthly from ages 32 to 36. He
used marijuana socially at monthly gatherings from ages 16 to
20. He used cocaine once at age 22. He used LSD twice when he
was age 16. He used heroin or opiates daily from ages 31 to
33. He entered Michigan Detox Specialists on August 2, 2012
and discharged on August 5, 2012. Inmate Watson indicated he
has been clean since the rapid detox [in] 2012. . . . .
Based on the observations above, inmate WATSON has not been
referred to the DAP Coordinator for a diagnostic interview.
Doc.
12-3 at 7.
Watson
initiated the BOP's administrative remedy process by
challenging this decision in a request for relief to the
warden and seeking a diagnostic interview by the coordinator
of the RDAP. Doc. 12-5 at 2-3. The warden denied this
request. Doc. 12-5 at 4. In so doing, the warden informed
Watson that:
A review of your case shows you were reviewed for
consideration for RDAP and advised that you did not qualify
for an RDAP Diagnostic Interview on February 28, 2017.
Current policy (Program Statement 5330.11, Psychology
Treatment Programs) states that, in order for an inmate to be
referred for a diagnostic interview, the assigned screener
will review the inmate's Central File and other
collateral sources of documentation to determine if there is
verification of a pattern of substance abuse or dependence
within the 12-month period prior to the inmate's arrest
on his current offense. A review of your central file showed
your arrest date as November 9, 2016. A review of your
Presentence Investigative Report (PSR) showed that you
consumed alcohol infrequently (“one beer daily from his
mid-20's to age 32 and one alcoholic beverage monthly
from ages 32 to 36”), had not consumed marijuana for
over 10 years, had not used LSD since age 16, and had
“used cocaine once at age 22.” Although your PSR
reflected your daily use of opiates “from ages 31 to
33” (roughly 2009 to 2012), it also reflected that you
underwent rapid detox treatment from August 2 to August 5,
2012. On August 5, 2012, you were discharged and
“advised to stay on Naltrexone maintenance therapy for
one year. [Watson] indicated he has been clean since the
rapid detox.”
Following your initial disqualification in February 2017, you
provided the collateral documentation that you attached to
this administrative remedy request - records from Dr. Michael
Gordon, MD, referencing the treatment provided in 2012. That
information does not document substance abuse or dependence
within the 12 months prior to November 9, 2016. In your
request, you referred to having “restarted addition
counseling and treatment, which I continued until my
self-surrender January 2017.” However, you have not
submitted records from that treatment as additional
collateral documentation. The information you [have]
submitted from Dr. Gordon documents recommendations of
“counseling” and “NA” (presumed to be
Narcotics Anonymous), but provides no documentation that you
underwent the counseling you describe or participated in
Narcotics Anonymous. In your Informal Complaint Resolution,
fled May 12, 2017, you stated that your PSR “verifies
continued prescribed treatment (Narcotics Anonymous) from
'12 to '16.” No. such information exists in
your PSR. Therefore, of the information you have submitted
for review as supplementary documentation for consideration
for RDAP, none of it provides evidence to confirm an existing
pattern of substance abuse or dependence within the 12 months
prior to your arrest for your current offense.
Consequently, you remain unqualified for referral for an RDAP
Diagnostic Interview, and were determined unqualified for
RDAP in a manner consistent with policy. You were advised of
the treatment alternatives (e.g., the Non-Residential DAP)
and the types of supplemental information that may be
reviewed for possible further verification of substance abuse
or dependence prior to your arrest. Should such information
be received in the future, it will be examined an considered
for possible RDAP qualification.
For relief, you requested an RDAP Diagnostic Interview. Based
on the above information, your request for Administrative
Remedy is denied.
Doc.
12-5 at 4.
Watson
appealed the warden's decision in which he alleged
“being unjustly denied participation” in the
Residential Drug Abuse Program and “request[ing] a
clinical interview with the RDAP Coordinator and eventual
admission into RDAP.” Doc. 12-5 at 6. The Regional
Director denied this appeal because “[a]lthough [your]
records do indicate a history of substance abuse, the
Substance Abuse section of your PSR indicates no pattern of
problematic use within the twelve months prior to your
arrest. . . . Since the information provided by a physician
details services rendered years before the 12-month time
frame required for program consideration, it fails to meet
the criteria regarding acceptable independent verification of
a substance use disorder. You are therefore unqualified for
the RDAP in accordance with policy.” Doc. 12-5 at 6.
Watson's final appeal to the Central Office was likewise
denied “based on the fact that there is no verifiable
documentation to support your participation in RDAP. As
required by policy, you have not provided any documentation
to substantiate drug or alcohol abuse within the 12 months
prior to being arrested for your current offense.” Doc.
12-5 at 9.
Upon
the exhaustion of his available administrative remedies,
Watson filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas
corpus relief. In this petition, Watson challenges the
constitutionality of the BOP's decision to deny him
referral to the RDAP coordinator for a diagnostic review
based on the finding that he did not have a verifiable
substance use disorder within the 12-month period before his
arrest on his current offense as required by 28 C.F.R.
550.53(b)(1) and was therefore ineligible for RDAP
participation. Doc. 1 at 6. He further alleges that
“[t]he Bureau applies the stated ‘12-month'
rule with bias and discrimination” as some inmates are
placed in the RDAP with no drug use for several years prior
to their arrest. Doc. 1 at 6.
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
Due Process
Watson
argues that the BOP acted improperly by deeming him
ineligible for placement in the RDAP at FPC Montgomery which
resulted in his ineligibility for an early release pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3261(e), a benefit potentially available
to inmates who successfully complete the RDAP. Watson alleges
that, in his opinion, the information provided to BOP
officials established a verifiable substance abuse problem
within the requisite 12-month period so as to render him
eligible for placement in the RDAP.
The
respondent submitted declarations from Juliana Dodd, the
Chief Psychologist at FCP Montgomery, addressing this claim.
In her initial declaration, Ms. Dodd maintains that:
The BOP provides both a Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP)
and a non-residential program. BOP Program Statement 5330.11,
Psychology Treatment Programs (dated March 16, 2009}
(formerly Program Statement 5330.01, Drug Abuse Program
Manual), establishes the procedures and requirements for
these programs. Bureau policy provides there are more
stringent requirements to qualify for RDAP. Upon completion
of RDAP the inmate may be eligible for getting up to a year
off his/her sentence.
RDAP is a voluntary program. Inmates are informed in
Admission and Orientation (A&O) that they may request
RDAP review by submitting an Inmate Request to Staff form
(more commonly known as a “cop-out”) to
Psychology staff. Once a cop-out is received, the first step
is for the inmate to be screened. The screening is
essentially a document review. This means we will review the
inmate's central file and other collateral sources of
documentation to determine if, among other things, there is
verification that can establish a pattern of substance abuse
or dependence. Only if the inmate has ...