Standifer v. Ledezma
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16841
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Standifer, a federal inmate, sought enrollment in RDAP but was denied due to no verifiable drug abuse within 12 months of his arrest.
- BOP RDAP eligibility requires a documented substance abuse problem within 12 months prior to arrest under 28 C.F.R. § 550.53 and Program Statement 5330.11.
- Standifer last used drugs in January 2004, more than three years before federal arrest and over a year before any state charges.
- Standifer filed a § 2241 petition arguing the 12-month window exceeds the BOP’s statutory authority under the APA.
- District court referred to a magistrate judge; magistrate recommended dismissal; district court adopted the recommendation and granted summary judgment for the BOP.
- This appeal challenges whether the 12-month eligibility window is a reasonable interpretation of the governing statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 12-month RDAP eligibility window is a reasonable interpretation of the statute | Standifer asserts APA authority limits not satisfied | BOP interpretation reasonably implements § 3621(e)(5)(B) | Yes; 12-month window is reasonable and delegated authority permissible |
| Whether the BOP violated the APA by enforcing the 12-month rule | BOP exceeded statutory authority | BOP’s rule aligns with Congress’s mandate | No; BOP’s interpretation reasonable and within statutory authority |
| Whether Standifer’s due process claim supports RDAP access | Denial of RDAP violates due process | RDAP participation is discretionary, not a liberty interest | No; RDAP participation is not a constitutionally protected right |
| Whether the alleged deliberate indifference to medical needs can be reviewed in habeas | RDAP denial implicated medical need | Medical-needs claim not appropriate in § 2241 habeas | Remanded as non-justiciable in habeas context; court declines to decide merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50 (U.S. 1995) (agency deference for permissible statutory construction)
- Mead Corp. v. United States, 533 U.S. 218 (U.S. 2001) (administrative interpretation may receive deference)
- Wilson v. United States, 503 U.S. 329 (U.S. 1992) (statutory tense informs interpretation of eligibility)
- Mora-Meraz v. Thomas, 601 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2010) (RDAP 12-month eligibility reasonable interpretation)
- Laws v. Barron, 348 F.Supp.2d 795 (E.D. Ky. 2004) (RDAP eligibility reasonable in light of statute)
- Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2011) (statutory review limits; RDAP placement not reviewable under APA)
- Fristoe v. Thompson, 144 F.3d 627 (10th Cir. 1998) (no constitutional liberty interest in discretionary RDAP outcomes)