Aguiar v. Bowers

No. 25-cv-11307-ADB (D. Mass. Apr. 16, 2026) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · April 16, 2026 · No. 25-cv-11307-ADB

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the respondent's motion to dismiss Stephen Aguiar's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging a Bureau of Prisons public safety factor used in his security classification. The court held that the challenge fell within habeas jurisdiction but that review under the Administrative Procedure Act was unavailable because the public safety factor was assigned pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), and dismissed the petition with prejudice.

Holdings

  1. A challenge to a BOP public safety factor falls within § 2241 habeas jurisdiction when success would make the prisoner eligible for a less restrictive form of confinement, including lower-security placement.
  2. The APA does not provide a basis to review an individual BOP public safety factor decision because the decision is made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), and 18 U.S.C. § 3625 makes the APA inapplicable to determinations, decisions, or orders under chapter 229, subchapter C.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a federal prisoner's challenge to a BOP public safety factor that affects eligibility for lower-security placement falls within habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
  2. Whether the Administrative Procedure Act permits review of an individual BOP public safety factor decision made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), in light of the exclusion in 18 U.S.C. § 3625.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (31)

  • Deniz v. Mun. of Guaynabo, 285 F.3d 142, 149–50 (1st Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • N.E. Erectors Ass’n of BTEA v. Sec. of Lab., Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 62 F.3d 37, 39 (1st Cir. 1995)(cited)
  • Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946)(cited)
  • Gordo-González v. United States, 873 F.3d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Muniz-Rivera v. United States, 326 F.3d 8, 11 (1st Cir. 2003)(cited)
  • Menge v. N. Am. Specialty Ins. Co., 905 F. Supp. 2d 414, 416 (D.R.I. 2012)(followed)
  • Murphy v. United States, 45 F.3d 520, 522 (1st Cir. 1995)(cited)
  • Royal v. Leading Edge Prods., 833 F.2d 1, 1 (1st Cir. 1987)(followed)
  • Guessefeldt v. McGrath, 342 U.S. 308, 310 (1952)(cited)
  • Chongris v. Bd. of Appeals of Town of Andover, 811 F.2d 36, 37 (1st Cir. 1987)(cited)

Showing top 10 of 31.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…