Builes v. Warden Moshannon Valley Correctional Center, 712 F. App'x 132

Background

Petitioner Luis Builes, a Colombian national convicted in Massachusetts of drug and illegal reentry offenses, is serving his sentence in federal custody in Pennsylvania and expects removal to Colombia upon release.
Builes filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition alleging Equal Protection violations because his immigration status/ICE detainer prevents participation in BOP programs available to others (residential drug treatment, camp/halfway house/pre-release placement, home release moves, and UNICOR employment).
A Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal, concluding Builes could not show disparate treatment based on alienage or that the BOP’s detainer-based distinctions were irrationally related to legitimate penological interests.
The District Court adopted the Report and Recommendation, dismissed the § 2241 petition, and denied a certificate of appealability; Builes appealed.
The Third Circuit granted the Government’s motion for summary affirmance, reviewing the dismissal de novo and concluding no substantial question was presented.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BOP policies denying certain programs to inmates with ICE detainers violate the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee	Builes: detainer-based exclusions effectively discriminate against aliens and deny access to rehabilitative programs and job training	Government: policies classify prisoners by ICE detainer status (not by alienage) and are rationally related to legitimate BOP interests (preventing flight, preserving programs for those lawful to remain)	Court: No Equal Protection violation — classification is by detainer status, not alienage, and survives rational basis review
Whether Builes showed discriminatory intent based on alienage	Builes: alleged differential treatment arising from immigration status	Government: no evidence the detainer policy was motivated by anti-alien animus; policy is neutral and facially based on detainers	Court: Builes failed to identify evidence of discriminatory intent; Arlington Heights factors not met
Applicable standard of review for the policies	Builes: (implicit) heightened scrutiny not warranted	Government: rational basis applies because neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right is implicated	Court: Applied rational basis; policies are rationally related to legitimate penological interests
Cognizability of non-BOP denial claims (e.g., college enrollment) in § 2241	Builes: also alleged denial of college enrollment due to detainer	Government: college denials not attributable to BOP actions	Court: College-enrollment claim not cognizable in § 2241 because it was not directed at BOP actions

Key Cases Cited

Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2002) (standard of plenary review for § 2241 dismissal)
Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 (3d Cir. 2001) (aliens are "persons" entitled to due process protections)
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) (constitutional protections extend to aliens)
Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (elements of an equal protection claim)
Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) (rational-basis scrutiny for regulations not affecting fundamental rights)
Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2005) (execution-of-sentence claims cognizable under § 2241)
Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2009) (certificate of appealability not required for certain § 2241 appeals)
Gallegos-Hernandez v. United States, 688 F.3d 190 (5th Cir. 2012) (detainer-based exclusions classify by detainer status and survive rational-basis review)
McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 1999) (excluding prisoners with detainers from community programs is rationally related to preventing flight)
Lyng v. Int’l Union, UAW, 485 U.S. 360 (1988) (definition of rational-basis review)
Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (factors for proving discriminatory intent)