Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sherrill v. Rios, 10th Cir. (2006)
Sherrill v. Rios, 10th Cir. (2006)
February 1, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
JAMES SHERRILL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
No. 05-1432
(D.C. No. 05-CV-01383-OES)
(D. Colo.)
-2-
transferred to and from low custody facilities even though 100% of BOP facilities
are overcrowded, and have been for many years. To say one person may not be
transferred do [sic] to overcrowding, while the BOP regularly transfers hundreds
of others, is disingenuous . . . [and] implausible.
The district court decided that Mr. Sherrill was alleging a due process
violation. It dismissed his petition, concluding that he has no constitutional right
to be placed in a low-security facility or in a facility within 500 miles of his
home. The court further concluded that although prison regulations may create a
liberty interest if they impose an atypical and significant hardship on the inmate
in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life, (quoting Sandin v. Conner,
515 U.S. 472, 480 (1995)), Mr. Sherrills classification and placement did not
meet that standard.
On appeal, Mr. Sherrill asserts that the district court erred by failing to
address his claim that the rejection of his transfer request was arbitrary and
capricious under 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). He asks that we remand for the district
court to address that claim.
II. DISCUSSION
The only relief that Mr. Sherrill requests in his 2241 petition is that he be
granted five days credit for each day served at a medium-security facility and
three days credit for each day served in a facility more than 500 miles from his
-3-
home. He does not cite any authority in support of this requested relief, nor even
indicate why he thinks it would be the appropriate remedy. We deny his section
706 claim because the BOP is granted broad discretion to transfer or not transfer
prisoners. See 5 U.S.C. 701(a) (This chapter applies . . . except to the extent
that . . . (2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.). We see
nothing in the record to support an abuse of discretion.
In any event, even assuming that the district court erred by not evaluating
Mr. Sherrills claim that section 706(2)(A) applies, and even assuming that the
BOPs denial of his transfer request was arbitrary and capricious, section 706
instructs courts merely to set aside agency actions that are arbitrary and
capricious. 5 U.S.C. 706(2). We conclude that even were we to set aside the
BOPs action here, that would not entitle Mr. Sherrill to the relief he seeks.
III. CONCLUSION
We therefore AFFIRM the dismissal of Mr. Sherrills 2241 petition.
Finding no reasoned, nonfrivolous argument in support of his request for relief,
see DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991), we also DENY
Mr. Sherrills motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
-4-
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
-5-