Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01475/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01475-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Olaf Peter Juda, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Ricardo E. Chavez, 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1475-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On February 26, 2010, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case

was assigned issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that the Petition

be denied. On March 8, 2010, Petitioner timely filed objections to the R&R.

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that the

district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Because Petitioner filed objections, the Court will review the R&R

de novo.

Petitioner’s claim in this case stems from the Second Chance Act, which permits the

Bureau of Prisons to release an inmate to either a community correctional facility or home

confinement up to twelve months before the inmate’s release date to increase the likelihood

Case 2:09-cv-01475-JAT Document 24 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The R&R calculates Petitioner’s release date to be in August 2010, which is less

than six months from today. Therefore, the Petition may be moot. However, Petitioner in

his objections at footnote 1 specifically claims the Petition is not moot.

2

 Conversely, the Warden’s finding specifically said it was an individualized review.

R&R at 3.

- 2 -

of the inmate’s successful reentry into the community. R&R at 2-3. The Bureau of Prisons

evaluated Petitioner for this program and determined he would be placed in a community

correctional facility six months prior to his release date. Id. at 2. Petitioner appealed this

decision through the prison’s administrative review process arguing he wanted to be placed

in the community correctional facility twelve months prior to his release.1

 Id.

Petitioner does not dispute the R&R’s recounting of the factors the law requires the

Bureau of Prisons to consider in deciding pre-release placement, nor the factual result of

Petitioner’s individual review. R&R at 2-4. Instead Petitioner argues more globally that the

review process is not really individualized,2

 which the law requires, and that the Bureau of

Prison has a “presumptive” six month placement policy. Objections at 3. Petitioner’s

evidence for this assertion is his observations of what other inmates have received and some

information he asserts he learned from a symposium in 2008. Objections at 2. Finally,

Petitioner asserts that discovery in this case would show the Bureau of Prison’s “real”

procedure. Objections at 3.

As the R&R recounts, the Bureau of Prisons has discretion of how to implement the

Second Chance Act, within certain guidelines. R&R at 2-3. In Petitioner’s case, the Bureau

of Prisons exercised that discretion and specifically applied the guidelines. R&R at 3

(quoting the Warden’s decision in Petitioner’s case). Petitioner claims that, with discovery

into other inmate’s releases, he could establish that the Warden’s exercise of his discretion

is the same in every case. 

Case 2:09-cv-01475-JAT Document 24 Filed 03/23/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 Discovery is available in habeas cases only if Petitioner shows “good cause.”

Estrada v. Chavez, 2009 WL 1383328, *1 (D. Ariz. 2009) (applying Rule 6(a) of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 to a Section 2241 case).

- 3 -

The Court finds that discovery in this case is not warranted.3 Specifically, even if

Petitioner’s claims were true, i.e. that in the majority of cases the Warden determines six

months prior to release is appropriate, such claims would not mean the that the Warden was

failing to “really” exercise discretion and simply applying a pre-determined six month

number. Further, the Court agrees with the R&R that there is nothing in this record to

suggest Petitioner did not receive all consideration to which he was entitled under the Second

Chance Act. R&R at 4. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. #22) is accepted and adopted, the Objections

(Doc. #23) are overruled, the Petition (Doc. #1) is denied, with prejudice, and the Clerk of

the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01475-JAT Document 24 Filed 03/23/10 Page 3 of 3