Saleh v. Young
5:19-cv-00468
S.D.W. VaMay 4, 2021Background
- Mohammed A. Saleh, a federal inmate, filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his prison classification and claiming he is receiving less "good time" credit while housed at a medium-security facility.
- Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn issued a Proposed Findings and Recommendation (PF&R) recommending denial of the petition; Saleh objected and the Warden responded.
- Saleh argued both that (1) under the First Step Act (FSA) and 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A) inmates should earn time credits (10 days per 30 days of programming) and that the BOP is improperly withholding them, and (2) the BOP/warden violated Program Statement 5100.08 and the Accardi doctrine by not transferring him to a lower-security facility consistent with his point score.
- The magistrate found the FSA-based claim premature because the BOP had implementation deadlines (begin by Jan. 15, 2020; full implementation by Jan. 15, 2022) and that § 3624(b)(1) governs statutory good-time credits; the magistrate also concluded the BOP has broad discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) and P.S. 5100.08 is non-mandatory guidance.
- The District Court reviewed Saleh’s objections, overruled them, adopted the PF&R, denied the § 2241 petition, and removed the case from the docket. The record notes Saleh’s custody classification form lists a management variable of "greater security" and a management security level "medium."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Saleh is entitled to additional good-time/time credits under the FSA/§3632(d)(4)(A) | Saleh: FSA requires time credits for successful participation; BOP is not permitting eligible inmates to earn them | Warden: statutory scheme §3624(b) governs good-time; FSA implementation timelines make claim premature; BOP still implementing programs/assessments | Court: Claim unsupported and premature; denies relief |
| Whether the Court may order transfer/classification change under Accardi because P.S. 5100.08 mandates placement by point score | Saleh: P.S. 5100.08 and his low point score require transfer; Warden not following policy (Accardi violation) | Warden: §3621(b) vests BOP with broad discretion; P.S. 5100.08 is guidance, not mandatory, and other factors (management variables) affect placement | Court: No Accardi violation; P.S. 5100.08 not mandatory; denies transfer relief |
| Whether Saleh has a protected liberty interest in placement/security level (due process) | Saleh: denial of transfer violated due process | Warden: inmates have no constitutional right to placement in particular facility | Court: Follows Supreme Court precedent — no protected liberty interest; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44 (4th Cir. 1982) (standard for magistrate judge report objections and when de novo review is required)
- Nader v. Blair, 549 F.3d 953 (4th Cir. 2008) (describing the Accardi doctrine that agencies must follow their own procedures)
- United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) (origin of the rule that agency failure to follow its procedures can invalidate actions)
- Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983) (prisoners have no constitutional right to placement in a particular facility)
- Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976) (inmates lack a constitutional right to confinement in a particular institution)