Camarena

MEMORANDUM *

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621 (e), eligible prisoners may participate in a drug rehabilitation program in which prisoners who successfully complete the program may receive a sentence reduction of up to one year. The Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) regulations exclude from participation in this program those prisoners for whom the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) has issued a letter of detainer. See 28 C.F.R. § 550.58 (a)(1)(i); see also McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that detainer exclusion is a permissible exercise of the BOP’s authority). Following Camarena’s successful completion of the program, and after the BOP determined that Camarena was eligible for early release, the INS issued a letter of detainer, stating that it was investigating whether Camarena was deportable. In response, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) rescinded Camarena’s sentence reduction.

On appeal from the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus, Camarena argues that the tandem actions of the INS and the BOP violated his right to due process. With respect to Camarena’s appeal of the actions of the INS, the district court properly dismissed…

Dissenting in part.

This a disturbing case. On the one hand, the government offers Hector Camarena a year reduction in his sentence as an incentive for him to participate in drug treatment. On the other, the same government takes away that incentive based on what may be an invalid INS detainer. As Mr. Camarena points out, a prisoner deprived of a liberty interest in good time credit because of misconduct is entitled to (1) advanced written notice of the full extent of the charges; (2) an opportunity to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (3) a written statement by a fact finder providing the reasons for its decision; and (4) support by evidence in the record. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). Here, Mr. Camarena was not charged with any misconduct but was nonetheless accorded less process. Had he been provided with such process, he would have at least had the opportunity to challenge the validity of the INS detainer. Ensuring such process would provide protection against what can only be described as a Kafkaesque scenario of a prisoner having no Bureau of Prisons remedy even when a detainer is issued in plain error,…