Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00723/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00723-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eric Byon Hill, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Conrad M. Graber, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-723-TUC-FRZ (HCE)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 9) and Memorandum in Support of Amended

Petition (Doc. 10) (hereinafter “Petitioner’s Memorandum”). On March 9, 2011 Respondent

filed an Amended Return and Answer (Doc. 14) (hereinafter “Amended Answer”). Pursuant

to the Rules of Practice of this Court, this matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate

Judge for Report and Recommendation. For the following reasons the Magistrate Judge

recommends that the District Court deny and dismiss the Petition.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner is an inmate currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution

in Safford, Arizona (hereinafter “FCI Safford”). (Amended Answer, p. 2 (citing Exh. 1)).

Case 4:10-cv-00723-FRZ Document 16 Filed 07/11/11 Page 1 of 12
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 -

In the instant Amended Petition, Petitioner claims that the Bureau of Prisons (hereinafter

“BOP”) refused to transfer him to a Residential Re-entry Center (hereinafter “RRC”) in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(b) and 3624(c). (Amended Petition and Memorandum).

In 2001, Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the Central

District of California of Armed Bank Robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(A),(D), and

Use and Carrying a Firearm during a federal offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

(Amended Answer, p.2 (citing Exh. 1)). He was sentenced to an aggregated term of 171

months of imprisonment, followed by 5 years of supervised released. (Id.). Petitioner was

also ordered to pay a $200 Crime Victim Fund Assessment and $1,204.50 in restitution to

the victim of his crime. (Id.). Petitioner’s projected release date is December 14, 2012 via

Good Conduct Time Release. (Amended Answer, p.2 & Exh. 1, Att. B).

Petitioner claims that on February 8, 2010, he submitted to Case Manager Smith an

“Inmate Request to Staff” to be immediately considered for transfer to RRC placement

pursuant to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3162(b). (Amended Petition, p.4; Amended

Answer, Exh. 1, Att. C (Petitioner’s February 8, 2010 “Inmate Request to Staff”)).

According to Petitioner, he never received a response to his request and Respondent does not

dispute this contention. (Amended Petition, p.4; see also Amended Answer.). Two months

later, on April 20, 2010, Petitioner submitted an “Attempt at Informal Resolution” form

regarding Case Manager Smith’s failure to respond to the February 8, 2010 request for

transfer. (Amended Petition, p.4; Amended Answer, Exh. 1, Att. C (Petitioner’s April 20,

2010 Attempt at Informal Resolution)). On April 27, 2010, an “Administrative Remedy

Response” to Petitioner’s April 20, 2010 Attempt at Informal Resolution was issued denying

Petitioner’s request for transfer. (Amended Answer, Exh. 1, Att. C (April 27, 2010

“Administrative Remedy Response”)). The Administrative Remedy Response stated in

pertinent part:

a[] Residential Reentry [sic] placement of 150-180 days will be sufficient for

your release needs. You were sentenced to a 171 month term for Use and

Carrying of Firearm; Armed Bank Robbery. You appear to have a tie to the

Central District of California, as your family lives in this district. The

resources of the Residential Re-entry Center are equitable and appropriate but

Case 4:10-cv-00723-FRZ Document 16 Filed 07/11/11 Page 2 of 12
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 -

do not exceed what is offered at this facility. You also appear to be

programming well at FCI Safford. The court recommendations were reviewed

and there were no recommendations for an extended Residential Reentry [sic]

placement. You appear to have ample resources available to you upon release

to assist with your re-entry to society. Bureau experience reflects that inmates’

release needs can usually be accommodated by a placement of six months or

less. You have offered no compelling reasons for an immediate release to a

Residential Reentry [sic] placement of over six months. Your designation at

this facility is appropriate and your request for immediate Residential Reentry

[sic] placement is denied. 

(Id.). 

Thereafter, Petitioner filed a “Request for Administrative Remedy” challenging the

denial of his request for immediate transfer to RRC placement. (Amended Petition, p.2;

Amended Answer, Exh. 1, Att. C (Petitioner’s May 7, 2010 Request for Administrative

Remedy)). On May 19, 2010, the Warden denied Petitioner’s request based upon review of

Petitioner’s case under the “five-factor criteria” specified in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). (Amended

Answer, Exh. 1, Att.C (May 19, 2010 denial of Request for Administrative Remedy)).

Petitioner was advised that review of his case using the five-factor criteria “determined you

are appropriately housed at FCI Safford. As with all routine transfers, the Unit Team will

continue to monitor your case and if appropriate, refer you for lesser security activities and

RRC placement.” (Id.). 

Petitioner appealed the May 2010 denial and he also requested placement in a

minimum security facility if his request for transfer to RRC placement was denied on appeal.

(Amended Answer, Exh. 1, Att. C (Petitioner’s May 25, 2010 “Regional Administrative

Remedy Appeal”)). On June 22, 2010, the Regional Director denied Petitioner’s appeal as

follows in pertinent part:

Your appeal has been investigated. A review of your case reveals that you are

serving a 171-month sentence for Armed Bank Robbery and Use and Carrying

a Firearm During a Crime of Violence. You have a projected release date of

December 2012. Our investigation supports the Warden’s response.

Institution staff utilized Program Statement 7310.04, Community Corrections

Center (CCC) Utilization and Transfer Procedure, and the criteria set forth in

the Second Chance Act of 2007, in determining that you are appropriately

housed at a low security level institution. You are incarcerated for a violent

crime of the greatest severity and have a history of additional violent crimes.

As such, you have a public safety factor which requires your placement in at

least a low security level institution. Therefore, you are not eligible for

placement in a minimum security facility and are appropriately housed at the

Case 4:10-cv-00723-FRZ Document 16 Filed 07/11/11 Page 3 of 12
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 -

low security level FCI, Safford, Arizona. When you are 17-19 months from

your projected release date, you will be reviewed for RRC consideration.

(Amended Answer, Exh. 1, Att. C (June 22, 2010 denial of Regional Administrative

Appeal)). 

Petitioner next filed a “Central Office Administrative Remedy Appeal.” (Amended

Answer, Exh. 1, Att. C (Petitioner’s July 27, 2010 Central Office Administrative Remedy

Appeal)). On February 2, 2011, the Administrator of National Inmate Appeals denied

Petitioner’s appeal as follows in pertinent part:

Our review of this matter reveals that the Warden and Regional Director have

adequately addressed your concerns. No inmate is entitled to either RRC

placement or placement of a particular duration. The maximum duration of

RRC placement was enlarged to 12 months by the Second Chance Act of

2007, which was signed into law on April 9, 2008. Inmates are considered on

an individual basis for pre-release community confinement in a manner

consistent with the criteria established at 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).

Upon review of your individual case, along with consideration of the above

factors and the criteria in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), staff determined your current

designation is commensurate with your security and programming needs and

transfer to an RRC is not warranted at this time. You are a Low security level

inmate with In [sic] custody and appropriately designated to FCI Safford.

Your current projected release date is December 14, 2012. You will again be

reviewed for RRC placement by your unit team between 17 and 19 months of

your projected release date and a final determination will be made.

(Amended Answer, Exh. 1, Att. C (February 2, 2011 denial of Central Office Administrative

Remedy Appeal)).

Respondent points out that in addition to raising the issue of immediate transfer to

RRC placement through the administrative remedy process, Petitioner may raise the issue

during his twice yearly Program Reviews. (Amended Answer, Att. 2 (Doc. 14-2), ¶3).

Further, “Petitioner will be considered for routine pre-release placement in an RRC 17-19

months in advance of his presumptive release date of December 14, 2012. This review will

occur at his July 16, 2011, Program Review.” (Id. at ¶4 (emphasis in original); see also id.

at ¶5 (“Routine transfers are addressed at Program Reviews pursuant to guidance issued by

the Central Office on November 14, 2008, Routine RRC Transfer Guidance”)). 

Case 4:10-cv-00723-FRZ Document 16 Filed 07/11/11 Page 4 of 12
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 -

II. DISCUSSION

Petitioner contends that Respondent abused his discretion and violated applicable

statutes in denying Petitioner’s request for immediate RRC placement. (See Amended

Petition & Petitioner’s Memorandum). Respondent contends that the decision to deny

Petitioner’s request for transfer to RRC placement is consistent with the discretion afforded

the BOP under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) and, therefore, Petitioner’s Amended Petition should be

denied. Respondent also argues that Petitioner’s claim under 18 U.S.C. §3624(c) is

premature.

A person who has been convicted in the federal criminal justice system and sentenced

to a term of imprisonment is committed to the custody of the BOP. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(a).

Pursuant to the applicable statutory scheme, the BOP “shall designate the place of the

prisoner's imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). “Two statutory provisions govern the BOP’s

authority to place inmates in its custody in RRCs: 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(b) and 3624(c).”

Sacora v. Thomas, 628 F.3d 1059, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2010). Section 3621 “governs the BOP’s

authority in cases where a prisoner who has more than a year left to serve of his or her prison

sentence requests a transfer to such a facility.” Id. at 1062 (footnote omitted). Under section

3621, the BOP may designate any available facility determined to be appropriate and

suitable, including an RRC, considering the following five factors: 

(1) the resources of the facility contemplated; 

(2) the nature and circumstances of the [prisoner's] offense; 

(3) the history and characteristics of the prisoner; 

(4) any statement by the court that imposed the sentence– 

(A) concerning the purposes for which the sentence to

imprisonment was determined to be warranted; or

(B) recommending a type of penal or correctional facility as

appropriate; and 

(5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing

Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(2) of title 28.

18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(1)-(5). Thus, section 3621(b) mandates the BOP to make an

individualized assessment under the five statutory criteria when making transfer or placement

determinations “‘to any available penal or correctional facility[]’” including RRC placement.

Case 4:10-cv-00723-FRZ Document 16 Filed 07/11/11 Page 5 of 12
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 -

Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180, 1188 (9th Cir.2008) (quoting 18 U.S.C. §3621(b))

(emphasis in original). 

Additionally, under section 3624(c):

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent practicable, ensure

that a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment spends a portion of the final

months of that term (not to exceed 12 months), under conditions that will

afford that prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the

reentry of that prisoner into the community. Such conditions may include a

community correctional facility.

18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1) (emphasis added); see also Sacora, 628 F.3d at 1062. Accordingly,

section “3624 governs the designation of prisoners to RRCs for the final months of their

sentences.” Sacora, 628 F.3d at 1062 (footnote omitted). In administering section 3624(c),

BOP automatically reviews prisoners for RRC placement “17-19 months before their

projected release dates.” Miller v. Whitehead, 527 F.3d 752, 756 (8th Cir. 2008); see also

Sacora, 628 F.3d at 1067-68 (pre-release placement review occurring “somewhere between

17 and 19 months before the inmate’s release...affords each inmate the opportunity to be

placed in a[n] RRC for the full 12 months the statute authorizes, should the circumstances

justify it.”). “[T]he ultimate point of reference for RRC placement decisions under section

3624(c) is the set of factors set forth in section 3621(b)....” Sacora, 628 F.3d at 1068.

The Ninth Circuit has explained that "[s]ection 3621(b) specifically provides that the

BOP has discretion to place an inmate into ‘any available penal or correctional facility’ and

to ‘direct the transfer of an inmate from one penal or correctional facility to another’ ‘at any

time[]’ 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)....[; whereas] the plain language of § 3624(c), addresses the

separate and unrelated authority and obligation to place inmates into RRCs during the [final

months of]...their sentences.” Rodriguez, 541 F.3d at 1187 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s

projected release date, assuming good conduct time, is December 14, 2012. Thus, when

Petitioner requested immediate transfer to RRC placement in 2010, he was not within 12

months of the completion of his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624; (see also Amended

Answer, p.4 n. 1). Further, because Petitioner had more than 19 months pending on his

sentence when he submitted the April 2010 request, he did not fall within the automatic preCase 4:10-cv-00723-FRZ Document 16 Filed 07/11/11 Page 6 of 12
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

- 7 -

release placement review period under section 3624(c). Therefore, section 3624(c) did not

apply to Petitioner’s request at issue. Instead, Petitioner’s request fell only under section

3621(b).

Petitioner takes specific issue with the statements in the initial denial of transfer to

RRC placement dated April 27, 2010 that RRC “placement of 150-180 days will be sufficient

for your release needs” and that “Bureau experience reflects that inmates’ release needs can

usually be accommodated by a placement of six months or less. You have offered no

compelling reasons for an immediate release to a Residential Reentry [sic] placement of over

six months.” (Amended Answer, Exh. 1, Att. C (April 27, 2010 Administrative Remedy

Response)). Responses to Petitioner’s subsequent requests for review and appeal of the April

27, 2010 decision reflect that when Petitioner is within 17 to 19 months from his projected

release date, he will be reviewed for RRC consideration, which is consistent with section

3624(c). See Sacora, 628 F.3d at 1063.

Petitioner argues that he was limited “to six months or less...” in RRC placement

“which is not what [C]ongress intended.” (Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 5). Petitioner

contends that he was denied RRC placement not based upon consideration of the five

statutory factors but because he had more than six months of his sentence left to serve.

(Amended Petition, p. 9; see also Petitioner’s Memorandum, pp. 5-6 (arguing that in denying

his request, BOP “enforce[d] their categorical rules that limits []RRC[] placement to six

months....”)). Petitioner requests the Court direct BOP to immediately consider transferring

him to RRC placement pursuant to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3621(b). (Amended

Petition, p.9).

The Ninth Circuit has invalidated a BOP regulation that categorically limited inmates’

RRC confinement under section 3621(b) to the last ten percent of the prison sentence being

served, not to exceed six months. Rodriguez, 541 F.3d at 1183 (citing 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20,

Case 4:10-cv-00723-FRZ Document 16 Filed 07/11/11 Page 7 of 12
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

Leading up to Rodriguez, “the BOP recognized that it generally ha[d] discretion

under section 3621(b) to place an inmate in an RRC at any time...However, the BOP elected

to ‘exercise its discretion to categorically limit inmates’ community confinement to the last

ten percent of the prison sentence being served, not to exceed six months.’” Rodriguez, 541

F.3d at 1183 (quoting 69 Fed.Reg. 51213 (Aug. 18, 2004) and citing 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20,

570.21)). The BOP’s decision to exercise its discretion in this manner was challenged and

invalidated in Rodriguez.

- 8 -

570.211

). The Ninth Circuit so held finding that “an ‘unavoidable conflict’ exists because

the statute requires the BOP to consider five factors in determining...placement, while the

regulation provides that the enumerated factors will not be fully considered.” Id. (citing

Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 249 (3rd Cir. 2005)). The regulation

at issue, 28 C.F.R. §570.21 has since been amended. See 73 Fed.Reg. 62440-01, 62443

(October 21, 2008). 

Nothing in the instant record supports Petitioner’s position that the BOP exercised its

discretion to categorically limit Petitioner’s RRC confinement to six months or less. Instead,

the record is clear that Petitioner’s request was considered and rejected upon consideration

of the five statutory factors with specific regard to Petitioner’s circumstances. The BOP

determined that: (1) the resources of the RRC “are equitable and appropriate but do not

exceed what is offered at...” FCI Safford where Petitioner is presently incarcerated (Amended

Answer, Exh. 1, Att. C (April 27, 2010 Administrative Remedy Response));see also 18

U.S.C. §3621(b)(1) (requiring consideration of the facility’s resources); (2) Petitioner had

been convicted of “Use and Carrying of Firearm; Armed Bank Robbery” (Amended Answer,

Exh. 1, Att. C (April 27, 2010 Administrative Remedy Response)), and is “incarcerated for

a violent crime of the greatest severity...” (Amended Answer, Exh. 1, Att. C (June 22, 2010

denial of Regional Administrative Appeal (also noting that Petitioner was convicted of

“Armed Bank Robbery and Use and Carrying a Firearm During a Crime of Violence”))); see

also 18 U.S.C. §3621(b)(2) (requiring consideration of the nature and circumstances of the

prisoner’s offense); (3) Petitioner “appear[ed] to have a tie to the Central District of

California, as [his]...family lives in this district...”, he appeared “to be programming well at

Case 4:10-cv-00723-FRZ Document 16 Filed 07/11/11 Page 8 of 12
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

- 9 -

FCI Safford”, he “appear[ed] to have ample resources available to [him]...upon release to

assist with...re-entry to society” (Amended Answer, Exh. 1, Att. C (April 27, 2010

Administrative Remedy Response)), Petitioner “ha[s] a history of additional violent

crimes...[and has]...a public safety factor which requires [his]... placement in at least a low

level security institution” (Amended Answer, Exh, 1, Att. C (June 22, 2010 denial of

Regional Administrative Appeal)); see also 18 U.S.C. §3621(b)(3) (requiring consideration

of the history and characteristics of the prisoner); (4) the sentencing court’s recommendations

reflected “no recommendations for an extended Residential Re[-]entry placement.”

(Amended Answer, Exh. 1, Att. C (April 27, 2010 Administrative Remedy Response)); see

also 18 U.S.C. §3621(b)(4) (requiring consideration of statements by the sentencing court

concerning purposes for which the sentence was determined to be warranted or

recommending a type of penal or correctional facility as appropriate); and (5) at the time of

Petitioner’s request, the U.S. Sentencing Commission had not issued any policy statements

related to the BOP’s pre-release RRC placement procedures (Amended Answer, Exh. 1, Att.

C (May 19, 2010 denial of Request for Administrative Remedy)); see also 18 U.S.C.

§3621(b)(5) (requiring consideration of any pertinent policy statement issued by the

Sentencing Commission). Although the BOP’s responses may be brief, “the statute does not

require the BOP to provide prisoners with a detailed statutory analysis whenever a prisoner

requests an immediate transfer to an RRC." Miller, 527 F.3d at 758. 

Further, on this record, reference in the April 2010 Administrative Remedy Response

to BOP’s “experience...that inmates’ release needs can usually be accommodated by a

placement of six months or less” does not negate the fact that Petitioner’s request was

determined on an individualized basis under the five factors set out at section 3162(b). See

Sacora, 628 F.3d at 1067 (“The BOP...is entitled to use its experience in interpreting and

administering a statute.”). The record does not support the conclusion that Petitioner’s

request for immediate transfer to RRC placement was categorically denied because he had

more than six months of his sentence to serve. Instead, Petitioner’s request was evaluated

under the five statutory factors. Because Petitioner’s request for immediate transfer to RRC

Case 4:10-cv-00723-FRZ Document 16 Filed 07/11/11 Page 9 of 12
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

Nor did Petitioner fall within the automatic pre-release placement review period

because he had more than 19 months left to serve. 

- 10 -

placement was determined on an individual basis considering the five factors set out at 18

U.S.C. § 3621(b), Petitioner’s Amended Petition should be denied on this ground.

Petitioner also argues that his request for RRC placement was determined pursuant

to an April 14, 2008 Memorandum (hereinafter “April 2008 Memorandum”) issued by the

BOP which, according to Petitioner, states that inmate placement beyond 180 days is highly

unusual and only possible with extraordinary justification. (Petitioner’s Memorandum, pp.

7-9). He argues that the BOP’s April 2008 Memorandum is contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c).

BOP officials issued the April 2008 Memorandum to explain changes to section

3624(c) in light of the Second Chance Act (hereinafter “SCA”) which, among other things,

amended section 3624(c) to lengthen the maximum amount of time for RRC placement

available under that statute from six months to twelve months. See Sacora, 628 F.3d at 1061,

1063. The April 2008 Memorandum “remind[ed] staff that inmates must be individually

considered for pre-release placements in community corrections facilities and that this

individual consideration must be based on the criteria set forth in section 3621(b).” Id. at

1064. The April 2008 Memorandum also noted that BOP “experience reflects that inmates’

pre-release RRC needs can usually be accommodated by a placement of six months or less.

Should staff determine an inmate’s pre-release RRC placement may require greater than six

months, the Warden must obtain the Regional Director’s written concurrence before

submitting the placement to the Community Corrections Manager.” Id.

Petitioner did not fall within section 3624(c) when he made his request for immediate

transfer because he had more than 12 months of his sentence left to serve. See 18 U.S.C.

§3624(c).2

 Although the April 27, 2010 Administrative Remedy Response contained the

opinion that a placement of 150-180 days would be sufficient for Petitioner’s needs, nothing

prevented Petitioner from consideration for transfer under section 3624(c) at the appropriate

time. Moreover, consistent with section 3624(c), Petitioner was specifically advised that he

Case 4:10-cv-00723-FRZ Document 16 Filed 07/11/11 Page 10 of 12
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

- 11 -

would receive automatic review for RRC placement when he was 17-19 months from his

projected release date. On the instant record, Respondent is correct that any argument that

Petitioner advances herein regarding violation of section 3624(c) is premature. See Mayes

v. Tews, 2011 WL 1812526, *3 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2011) (citing Quan v. U.S. Bureau of

Prisons, 402 Fed.Appx. 181, 2010 WL 4296638 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (claim under

the section 3624(c) is unripe where prisoner is not yet serving that portion of his sentence

which would qualify him for RRC consideration under that statute)). Further, the Ninth

Circuit has recognized that “the BOP relied on ‘Bureau experience’ to explain its choice to

require unusual circumstances and additional checks before placing prisoners in RRCs for

longer than six months....[I]t was reasonable for the BOP to rely on its experience...” in

interpreting and administering the SCA. Sacora, 628 F.3d at 1069. Moreover, the Ninth

Circuit has upheld BOP reliance on such policy in administering the SCA. See id. at 1070

(“The SCA does not require the BOP to make any placements in a[n] RRC for longer than

six months; the statute affords the BOP the option to make placements up to 12

months....[W]e conclude that the policies are based on a reasonable construction of the

SCA....and those policies are not arbitrary or capricious.”).

III. CONCLUSION

Because the BOP assessed Petitioner’s request for immediate transfer to RRC

placement on an individual basis in light of the factors set out at 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b),

Petitioner’s Amended Petition should be denied to the extent that he requests the Court to

direct BOP to immediately consider his transfer to RRC placement. Additionally,

Petitioner’s remaining claim under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) is premature and the Amended

Petition should be dismissed as to that claim.

IV. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court

deny and dismiss Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 9).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and LRCiv 7.2(e), Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District of

Case 4:10-cv-00723-FRZ Document 16 Filed 07/11/11 Page 11 of 12
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

- 12 -

Arizona, any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days after being

served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to another

party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. Fed.R.Civ.P.

72(b)(2). If objections are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CV 10-

723-TUC FRZ.

Failure to file timely objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate

Judge may be deemed a waiver of the party’s right to de novo review of the issues. See

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S.

900 (2003).

DATED this 8th day of July, 2011.

Case 4:10-cv-00723-FRZ Document 16 Filed 07/11/11 Page 12 of 12