Jarjour v. Johns, 5:20-cv-00016

Petitioner William Jarjour, a Venezuelan national, was convicted in the Southern District of Florida of possession with intent to distribute methylone and a § 924(c) firearms offense and sentenced to 132 months.
BOP transferred Jarjour from an institution participation site for the Institution Hearing Program (IHP) to a private contract facility and did not arrange or complete an immigration removal hearing before his projected good-conduct release.
Jarjour alleges the BOP refused to conduct a deportation hearing or transfer him to an IHP site under Program Statements 5100.08 and 5111.04, and contends violations of those policies, the First Step Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b), and the Eighth Amendment.
He seeks an order compelling an immigration/deportation hearing and transfer to a BOP facility after the hearing.
Respondent moved to dismiss, arguing Jarjour’s claims are not cognizable in a § 2241 habeas petition, the court lacks jurisdiction to compel or review removal proceedings, and the Attorney General/BOP has discretion to house inmates in private contract facilities.
The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the Motion to Dismiss, denying the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction, and denying leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether requesting an order to compel an immigration/removal hearing is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241	Jarjour: BOP and immigration authorities must initiate and complete removal proceedings pre-release under Program Statements and § 1228; First Step Act supports this	Respondent: Jarjour does not seek immediate or speedier release; compelling a hearing is not a habeas claim; BOP policy violations do not create habeas relief	Court: Claim not cognizable under § 2241; dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; § 1228 does not create enforceable pre-release right to commence/complete removal proceedings
Whether Jarjour has a statutory or constitutional right to transfer to an IHP/hearing site or to avoid placement in a private contract facility	Jarjour: Program Statement 5111.04 and § 1228 entitle him to transfer and a hearing site placement	Respondent: BOP has broad statutory discretion to designate place of confinement (18 U.S.C. § 3621); Attorney General/BOP may use contract facilities; § 1228 is qualified and does not eliminate BOP discretion	Court: No right to specific placement; placement is discretionary and not judicially reviewable here; claim dismissed
Whether leave to appeal in forma pauperis should be permitted	Jarjour: (implied) seeks IFP to appeal	Respondent: Appeal would lack non-frivolous issues and not be in good faith	Court: Deny leave to appeal IFP; no non-frivolous grounds for appeal

McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002) (prisoners have no due-process interest in placement in a particular institution)
Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983) (no constitutional right to particular prison placement)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (appeal in forma pauperis standard; good faith requirement)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (definition of frivolous legal claims)
Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528 (11th Cir. 2002) (IFP appeals must have arguable merit in law or fact)
Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392 (11th Cir. 1993) (frivolousness standard for pro se filings)
Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) (agency must follow its own rules)
Busch v. County of Volusia, 189 F.R.D. 687 (M.D. Fla. 1999) (objective standard for good-faith assessment of IFP appeals)