Case ID: f-appx_443/html/0280-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wilson THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Neil H. ADLER, Warden; Taft C.I.; Federal Bureau of Prisons, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 10-15820.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 18, 2011.
    Wilson Thomas, Taft, CA, pro se.
    Bureau of Prisons Regional Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Stockton, CA, Mark J. McKeon, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, Dale Patrick, Esquire, Taft, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Wilson Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition as moot. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm the district court.

Thomas contends that the district court erred by dismissing his habeas petition seeking immediate consideration for transfer into a Residential Reentry Center (“RRC”). The record reflects that the district court did not err when it dismissed the petition because the Bureau of Prisons has eliminated the policy Thomas challenged in his petition. In addition, at the time of the district court’s decision, Thomas had already received an individualized consideration for RRC placement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(b) and 3624(c), and Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180, 1184-89 (9th Cir.2008).

Thomas’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.