Intriguing Ninth Circuit ruling on RDAP eligibility claim
April 14, 2010
The federal residential drug abuse program (RDAP) is rarely discussed and, even more rarely the subject of litigation. For this reason (and others), we found intriguing today's Ninth Circuit panel ruling in Mora-Meraz v. Thomas, No. 09-35413 (9th Cir. Apr. 14, 2010). Here is how it starts:
Antonio Mora-Meraz (“Mora-Meraz”), a federal prisoner in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons (the “Bureau”), appeals the denial of his § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief. He was convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, and was sentenced to 120 months of incarceration. In the district court, he challenged the Bureau’s decision to deny him eligibility for admission to the Residential Drug Abuse Program (the “RDAP”) at the Federal Correctional Institution at Sheridan, Oregon.
The RDAP is an intensive drug abuse program requiring a minimum of 500 hours of treatment apart from the general prison population. Program Statement 5330.10, Chapter 5.1. The program utilizes both individual and group therapy sessions and lasts for six to twelve months. Id. Additionally, individuals enrolled in the RDAP are required to complete transitional courses in a community-based program once placed in a halfway house or on supervised release. Id. The RDAP is attractive to prisoners because, as an incentive to participate in substance abuse rehabilitation, it grants up to one year sentence credit to those who successfully complete it.
Before the district court, Mora-Meraz claimed that the Bureau’s unwritten requirement that he present documented proof of substance use within twelve months of imprisonment was invalid because it was not subject to notice and comment as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and because the Bureau failed to articulate a rational explanation for the requirement. We hold that the Bureau did not run afoul of the APA’s procedural requirements and affirm the district court’s denial of Mora-Meraz’s petition for habeas corpus.
… [9] Here there exists a reasonable basis for the Bureau’s
decision to adhere to the DSM-IV’s twelve-month rule and a
reasonable basis for the Bureau to apply that rule to require
documented use of a drug within the twelve months prior to
incarceration. Therefore, we conclude that the Bureau’s
implementation of the twelve-month rule was neither arbitrary
nor capricious under § 706.
IV
Congress realized the pressing need for extensive drug
abuse treatment programs within our federal prisons. To
ensure that inmates receive crucial treatment for their addictions, Congress provided an incentive for individuals to subject themselves to the rigors of an intensive residential
treatment program. But the Bureau is properly concerned with
enrolling inmates who genuinely qualify for the therapy and
its attending incentive to successfully complete the RDAP.
Prisoners who are not currently suffering from a clinically
diagnosed drug dependency or a recognized substance abuse
problem under the DSM-IV protocols should not be permitted
to take the place of another who is in greater need of this
intensive treatment. The Bureau’s rationale for confirming a
diagnosis of drug abuse or dependence is clear. The district
court correctly denied habeas corpus relief to Mora-Meraz.
AFFIRMED.
See entire decision also in this section of InmateAid