Daniel Rodriguez v. Paul Copenhaver
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9559
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Rodriguez was sentenced in federal court by Judge Robert Propst to 272 months while he remained in state custody; the federal judgment was silent on concurrent vs. consecutive treatment of subsequently imposed state sentences.
- After Rodriguez completed his state time, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) took custody and Rodriguez requested a nunc pro tunc designation crediting his state custody toward his federal sentence (effectively reducing ~3 years).
- The BOP solicited the sentencing judge’s view but its letter to Judge Propst was sent to the Southern District of Florida; Chief Judge Federico Moreno (not the sentencing judge and recused from the case) replied opposing retroactive credit.
- The BOP denied the nunc pro tunc request and explicitly cited Chief Judge Moreno’s letter in its decision.
- Rodriguez filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition alleging the BOP violated § 3621(b)(4), due process, and recusal statutes by relying on Moreno’s letter; the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under § 3625.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding the district court had jurisdiction to review claims that the BOP acted contrary to law or the Constitution and ordering the BOP to reconsider Rodriguez’s request without considering Moreno’s letter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| District court jurisdiction to review BOP nunc pro tunc denials | Rodriguez: district court may review constitutional or legal claims about BOP’s § 3621 actions via § 2241 | BOP: § 3625 exempts § 3621 decisions from APA-style review; thus district court lacks jurisdiction | Court: District court has jurisdiction to hear claims that BOP exceeded authority, violated statute, or violated Constitution (Close) |
| Proper interpreter of § 3621(b)(4) — whose statements may BOP consider | Rodriguez: § 3621(b)(4) requires consideration of statements by the sentencing judge only | BOP: could solicit/consider court statements generally; here it relied on Chief Judge Moreno’s letter | Court: § 3621(b)(4) contemplates statements by the sentencing judge; BOP erred by treating Moreno’s letter as the sentencing court’s statement |
| Due process/recusal — was reliance on recused judge’s letter unconstitutional or prohibited | Rodriguez: relying on a recused judge’s letter violated due process and appearance-of-justice principles; Moreno had a conflict | BOP/response: letter was an external consultation, not an in-court decision; recusal statutes and in-court recusal precedents inapplicable | Court: Majority: reliance on Moreno’s letter violated due process and should not have been considered; Concurrence: statutory error alone sufficed and due process/recusal holdings unnecessary |
| Remedy | Rodriguez: vacatur of denial and order BOP to reconsider excluding Moreno’s letter | BOP: (implicit) denial should stand or error harmless | Court: Reverse and remand; direct BOP to reconsider nunc pro tunc request within 30 days without considering Moreno’s letter |
Key Cases Cited
- Close v. Thomas, 653 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (district court jurisdiction to review legal/constitutional challenges to BOP § 3621 actions)
- Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review; related jurisdictional principles)
- Reynolds v. Thomas, 603 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2010) (BOP authority to designate place of confinement under § 3621)
- Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2008) (sentencing judge’s statements considered among § 3621(b) factors)
- Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2005) (Congress intended BOP to take into account sentencing judge’s recommendations)
- Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) (Due Process requires recusal where judge has direct personal interest)
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) (appearance of justice doctrine)
- Concrete Pipe & Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr., 508 U.S. 602 (1993) (disqualification principles for judicial/quasi-judicial officers)
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (due process may require recusal to ensure fair adjudication)
- Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455 (1971) (neutral adjudication requirement)