Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-04231/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-04231-4/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

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WINIFRED JIAU,

Petitioner,

v.

RANDY L. TEWS, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 13-cv-04231-YGR (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT 

TO PROVIDE FURTHER 

DEVELOPMENT OF RECORD 

This action was originally filed as a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. 2241. Petitioner Winifred Jiau, who at the time she filed the instant petition was an 

inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), alleged that Respondent 

unlawfully denied her request for transfer to a Residential Re-entry Center (“RRC”). Petitioner 

sought an Order directing the BOP to immediately transfer her to an RRC, and requiring the BOP 

to consider the relevant statutory factors to determine the appropriateness of such a transfer. See

Dkt. 1 at 1-2, 6. 

On November 26, 2013, this Court issued an Order to show cause why the petition should 

not be granted. Dkt. 7.

On December 9, 2014, Petitioner moved to convert her petition to an action pursuant to 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) 

(“Bivens”). Dkt. 9. 

On January 27, 2014, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. Dkt. 13. 

Respondent argued that at the time the petition was initially filed, Petitioner had already obtained 

the relief she was requesting: transfer to an RRC. See Dkt. 19 at 2 (citing Dkt. 9). Respondent 

then informed the Court that Petitioner had been released from BOP custody. Id. Thus, 

Respondent argued that not only was the petition moot because Petitioner had received the relief 

requested, but it was also moot because she was no longer in custody. Id.

In an Order dated August 28, 2014, the Court granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss the 

petition as moot. Because Petitioner’s release from BOP custody was a result more favorable than 

Case 4:13-cv-04231-YGR Document 35 Filed 11/23/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the relief sought in the petition, the Court found that there was no longer a live controversy before 

it. Dkt. 23 at 2 (citing Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 528 (9th Cir. 1996)). Also in its August 

28, 2014 Order, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion to convert her petition to a Bivens action 

upon determining that she filed the instant action prior to exhausting administrative remedies. Id.

(citing Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002)). 

Thereafter, this case was reopened when the Ninth Circuit reversed this Court’s ruling 

relating to Petitioner’s motion to convert her petition to a Bivens action.1 See Dkt. 27. Because 

the record was not fully developed, the Ninth Circuit stated that it could not determine “whether 

the district court properly denied the motion to convert based on [Petitioner’s] failure to exhaust.” 

Id. at 2-3. The Ninth Circuit thus vacated “the portion of the judgment denying [Petitioner’s] 

motion to convert and remand[ed] for further proceedings, including, if necessary, further 

development of the record as to whether the government sought an extension [to file a response to 

the grievance] and whether [Petitioner] received notice of an extension.” Id. at 3. The Ninth

Circuit has since issued its mandate. Dkt. 31.

Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which the 

Court construes to be her notice of intent to prosecute this action as a civil rights action with the 

higher filing fee of $400.00. Dkt. 33. Prior to the Court ruling on the aforementioned motion or 

reconsidering Petitioner’s motion to covert the instant habeas action to a civil rights action 

pursuant to Bivens, it must first direct Respondent to provide further development of the record as 

to Petitioner’s failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. Specifically, Respondent shall 

address and provide further briefing as to whether the government sought an extension to file a 

response to the grievance and whether Petitioner received notice of an extension. See Dkt. 27 at 3. 

No later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order, Respondent shall provide 

the aforementioned further briefing and may also file a renewed motion to deny Petitioner’s 

motion to convert her petition to a Bivens action (if Respondent believes that it is clear from the 

record that Petitioner filed the instant action prior to exhausting administrative remedies). If 

 

1

The Ninth Circuit did not reverse the portion of this Court’s judgment dismissing 

Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition as moot. 

Case 4:13-cv-04231-YGR Document 35 Filed 11/23/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Respondent files a renewed motion, Petitioner shall file a response to that renewed motion no later 

than twenty-eight (28) days of the filing of the renewed motion. Respondent shall file a reply to 

Petitioner’s response no later than fourteen (14) days of the filing of the response.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

November 23, 2016

Case 4:13-cv-04231-YGR Document 35 Filed 11/23/16 Page 3 of 3