recommendations that they serve their sentences in a community corrections
center, but were denied such placement pursuant to the Department of
Justice's abruptly announced change of policy barring it except for the
last 10% of sentence.
Both the agency and agency officials are proper defendants, since the
Administrative Procedures Act waives sovereign immunity for both for
actions for prospective injunctive relief.
The court reviews the agency's statutory interpretation under the Chevron
rule of deference, and concludes that it is clearly erroneous, since the
relevant statutes unambiguously include community corrections centers as
"places of imprisonment." The distinction between "imprisonment" and
"community confinement" in the Sentencing Commission guidelines has nothing
to do with interpreting the statutes themselves. See: Estes v. Federal
Bureau of Prisons, 273 F.Supp.2d 1301 (S.D.Ala. 2003).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login