Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00904/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00904-2/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William Scott Sours, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Dennis Smith, 

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-0904-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Petitioner William Scott Sours filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on April

23, 2010 raising one ground for relief. Petitioner asserted that he was denied an RRC

placement decision on an individual basis according to criteria set out in 18 U.S.C. §

3624(c)(6), a provision of the Second Chance Act. He further asserts that he was denied

relocation to his home state and RRC placement 17 to 19 months prior to his release date.

Respondent filed a response in opposition to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and

argued factually that Petitioner was given an individualized review 20 months prior to his

projected release date, the necessary factors were considered and it was determined that 150

to 180 days of pre-release RRC placement was sufficient time for him to successfully

transition into the community. Respondent argued that Petitioner provided no evidence to

support his allegation that he was entitled to relocation to his home state. In support of these

assertions, Respondent attached certain declarations and documents. In particular,

Case 2:10-cv-00904-SRB Document 24 Filed 03/24/11 Page 1 of 6
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

- 2 -

Respondent's Unit Manager Cherri Phillips provided a declaration asserting that Petitioner

was an inmate on her caseload and that she met with Petitioner along with the Unit Team on

April 16, 2010, approximately 20 months prior to his good-conduct time release date of

December 6, 2011. Included among the purposes of the meeting was consideration for

placement in a Residential Reentry Center (RRC). Ms. Phillips noted that at the meeting

Petitioner asked to change his RRC location to the Western District of Missouri because he

was under a State of Missouri parole board until January 23, 2027. Petitioner's supervised

release jurisdiction is in the Northern District of Oklahoma, the district where he was

convicted and sentenced. Ms. Phillips notes that Petitioner not only made this request on

April 16, 2010 but had made the same request for transfer of his supervised release

jurisdiction at his program review meeting on May 1, 2009 and October 22, 2009. This

request is documented by the report prepared April 16, 2010 in connection with the program

review. As further documented, after the program review in April 2009, the reviewer noted

that Petitioner did not have a viable release plan in the Western District of Missouri and that

unless he was able to provide his unit team with a viable release plan he would be released

to the Northern District of Oklahoma. Ms. Phillips concluded her declaration by noting that

there was still sufficient time for Petitioner to come up with a viable release plan in the

Western District of Missouri and that at his next program review in October 2010, 14 months

prior to his release date, Petitioner may submit more information if his circumstances

changed and his placement date and location could be reconsidered.

Petitioner filed a traverse in response to the opposition to his Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus. Petitioner argued that one of the requirements for RRC placement was

released to locations where inmates have the greatest likelihood of successful adjustment.

Petitioner argues that he has no lasting ties or meaningful contacts in the sentencing district,

the Northern District of Oklahoma, that his parole is in the State of Missouri through January

2027 and that he lived in Missouri and only traveled from Missouri to Tulsa, Oklahoma for

the purpose of committing the robbery. Petitioner argues that the Bureau of Prisons failed to

take into account his individualized needs which includes extended RRC placement and

Case 2:10-cv-00904-SRB Document 24 Filed 03/24/11 Page 2 of 6
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 -

longer than 150-180 days of RRC placement.

The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on January 25, 2011

recommending that the Petition be denied citing Respondent's evidence showing that

Petitioner was considered for RRC placement and transfer of his supervised release

jurisdiction. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Petitioner had not demonstrated that he

was being held in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States but

that the evidence showed that Petitioner received an individualized assessment of both the

length and location of his RRC placement during which the proper statutory factors were

considered. 

On February 1, 2011 the Magistrate Judge issued a supplement to the Report and

Recommendation based on a recent opinion by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Sacora

v. Thomas, 628 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2011). This case addressed the question of whether the

Bureau of Prison's policies regarding release to Residential Reentry Centers are consistent

with the amended provisions of the Second Chance Act, specifically, the 2008 amendment

to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) which extended a prisoner's eligibility for placement in an RRC from

6 to 12 months. In Sacora, the court addressed a memorandum issued by the Bureau of

Prisons concluding that pre-release RRC needs can usually be accommodated by a placement

of 6 months or less even though the Second Chance Act makes eligibility for pre-release

RRC placements a maximum of 12 months. The memorandum requires that a prison warden

obtain a regional director's written concurrence before submitting a placement to an RRC of

longer than 6 months. The Magistrate Judge's Supplemental Report and Recommendation

noted that this Bureau of Prison's policy of 6 months in an RRC in most cases despite inmate

eligibility for 12 months is consistent with the Second Chance Act. The Magistrate Judge

concluded that Petitioner's challenge to RRC placement of 5 to 6 months is foreclosed by the

Sacora decision and provides further support for the recommendation to deny the Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Petitioner filed objections to the original Report and Recommendation dated January

28, 2011 and to the Supplement to the Report and Recommendation dated February 5, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00904-SRB Document 24 Filed 03/24/11 Page 3 of 6
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

- 4 -

Respondent filed a response to Petitioner's objections on February 14, 2011.

In his objections Petitioner asserts that the Magistrate Judge had lost sight of what

Petitioner requested in his petition. "All the Petitioner is asking the Court is to ORDER the

BOP to provide the Petitioner with his due process rights to be considered in a (sic)

individual assessment of his needs consistent with the provision in § 3621(b)." Petitioner

claims that Respondent presented no evidence that he was given an individual assessment

as required by law but made nothing more than conclusory statements that he had been

considered. He asserts that his unit team was unaware that he had been incarcerated for more

than 30 years and that he came into federal custody from a state prison in Missouri where he

had served 23 years before being paroled to his federal sentence. The Declaration of Cherri

Phillips is to the contrary. It specifically notes awareness of Petitioner's parole status in

Missouri. Petitioner further notes in his objections, "Since this hearing and the filing of this

Petition, the Unit Team has put the Petitioner in for a relocation to the state of Missouri."

He argues however, that it should have been done sooner, at his October 2009 review. Based

on Petitioner's statement in his objection part of his argument that he was denied relocation

to his home state may have become moot. It appears that his Unit Team is attempting to have

that relocation approved.

In Petitioner's Objections to the Supplement, he again argues that the Magistrate Judge

misinterprets his arguments. 

Petitioner is arguing that the BOP and the Respondent are not giving him the

individualized assessment of his individual needs under the SCA. The

Respondent make a overall conclusory claim that they considered the

Petitioner under the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) and determined

that six months was sufficient time for the Petitioner.

He argues that this was not an individualized assessment because his Unit Team was not

aware that he had been incarcerated for 30 years, most of which time was served in the

Missouri State Penitentiary. He argues that his Unit Team's ignorance of this fact

demonstrates that he was not given an individual assessment.

 Other than Petitioner's two statements that his Unit Team was not aware that he had

served time in the Missouri State Penitentiary the other submitted evidence shows that they

Case 2:10-cv-00904-SRB Document 24 Filed 03/24/11 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 -

were. The Bureau of Prison's sentence monitoring computation data for Petitioner shows that

upon his federal sentence completion he was subject to parole until January 23, 2027 in the

State of Missouri. The Declaration of Cherri Phillips reflects her awareness that at the time

of his April 16, 2010 program review Petitioner wanted to change his RRC location to

Missouri because he was under the State of Missouri Parole Board until January 23, 2027 for

state offenses and that he had made this request as early as May 1, 2009 and again on October

22, 2009. The progress report prepared in connection with his April 16, 2010 program review

contains specific acknowledgment that he is on parole release with the State of Missouri until

January 23, 2027. Petitioner's statement that his Unit Team was unaware of his Missouri

parole is simply not borne out by the contemporaneous evidence prepared at the time of his

program review. That contemporaneous evidence further supports Respondent's claim that

Petitioner was advised that if he could come up with a viable release plan for Missouri that

the paperwork would be submitted. Apparently he has done that and acknowledges that

transfer paperwork has now been submitted to the probation department in Missouri for

consideration of transfer of his supervised release.

The primary arguments made in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and as

confirmed by Petitioner in his Objections are that he was not given individualized

consideration of his RRC placement and relocation to his home state as required by 

18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). The evidence contradicts both arguments. Petitioner was given

individualized consideration and it appears that his Unit Team continues to work with him to

attempt to make a viable plan for relocation to his home state. Moreover, Petitioner presents

no evidence that a 180 day placement violates his statutory rights and the recent Ninth Circuit

decision in Sacora suggests that such an argument is foreclosed.

IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner's Objections and Supplemental Objections to

the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Supplement to Report and

Recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge as the Order of this Court.

Case 2:10-cv-00904-SRB Document 24 Filed 03/24/11 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying any Certificate of Appealability and leave to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.

DATED this 24th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00904-SRB Document 24 Filed 03/24/11 Page 6 of 6