Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04270/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04270-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

As petitioner is incarcerated within the Northern District of California and her

petition challenges the execution of her federal sentence, venue is proper in this district. See

Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249-50 (9th Cir. 1989). 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YESENIA GARCIA REYNA,

Petitioner,

 v.

MR. COPENHAGER, Warden,

Federal Corrections Institution – 

Dublin, 

Respondent. ____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4270 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On August 20, 2007, petitioner, a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at the Federal

Corrections Institution, Dublin, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1

 He has paid the filing fee. Petitioner

challenges the lawfulness of Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) regulations prohibiting her transfer

to a Community Correctional Center (“CCC”) until such time as only ten percent of her

sentence remains. Petitioner claims the regulations, codified at 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20 and

570.21, are inconsistent with the clear congressional intent articulated in 18 U.S.C. §

3621(b). Section § 3621(b) allows the BOP to exercise its discretion to transfer federal

prisoners from correctional facilities to community confinement at any time. See Whistler v.

Wrigley, No. C 06-0860-LJO-WMW, 2007 WL 1655787, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 7, 2007)

Case 3:07-cv-04270-MMC Document 2 Filed 08/31/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

(discussing § 3621(b)).

Petitioner states in her petition that she is in the process of exhausting her challenge to

the BOP regulations through the BOP’s administrative appeals process. Section 2241 does

not specifically require petitioners to exhaust available remedies before filing petitions for a

writ of habeas corpus. Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001). In the

Ninth Circuit, however, “we require, as a prudential matter, that habeas petitioners exhaust

available judicial and administrative remedies before seeking relief under § 2241.” Id. The

requirement may be waived in limited circumstances, because it is not a jurisdictional

prerequisite. Id.; see Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2004) (listing

circumstances under which waiver of exhaustion requirement may be appropriate).

Petitioner claims the exhaustion requirement should be waived in her case. First, she

argues that exhausting her claim through the BOP’s administrative appeals process will take

too long, given the short amount of time left on her sentence. (See Petition at 3.) Petitioner

began serving her twenty-four-month sentence on February 20, 2007, six months before she

filed the instant action. (See Petition at 2.) She states that her projected release date from

prison is May 7, 2008, and that if she prevails on her claim she will be entitled to be

transferred to a CCC as early as December 7, 2007. (See Petition at 3.) Petitioner’s

argument is not persuasive, because she has not shown that there is insufficient time for her

to complete the administrative appeals process. She has not provided the Court with any

information about when she began exhausting her claim through the BOP’s administrative

appeals process, or how far she has progressed through the administrative appeals process to

date. Further, she has not provided the Court with any evidence to support the proposition

her claim cannot be resolved through the administrative appeals process on or by December

7, 2007, the earliest date she claims she can be transferred to a CCC. Petitioner’s conclusory

assertion that the administrative appeals process will take too long is not a sufficient basis to

waive the exhaustion requirement. 

Petitioner further argues the exhaustion requirement should be waived because

exhaustion would be futile. See Fraley v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 1 F.3d 924, 925

Case 3:07-cv-04270-MMC Document 2 Filed 08/31/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

(9th Cir. 1993) (holding federal prisoner petitioning district court for presentence credits

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 was not required to exhaust BOP administrative remedies where 

doing so would be futile). Recent cases and actions of the BOP suggest otherwise. All four

circuits that have addressed the validity of the BOP regulations at issue here, 28 C.F.R. 

§§ 570.20 and 570.21, have found the regulations invalid, see Wedelstedt v. Wiley, 477 F.3d

1160 (10th Cir. 2007); Levine v. Apker, 455 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006); Fults v. Sanders, 442

F.3d 1088 (8th Cir. 2006); Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2005),

as have the federal district courts in the Ninth Circuit that have addressed the issue, see

Whistler, 2007 WL 1655787, at *3 (listing cases). The facts in Whistler suggest the BOP

might be reevaluating its application of the regulations in light of these rulings. See id. at *6

(dismissing petition challenging regulations as moot after BOP informed district court it had

evaluated petitioner’s request for placement in Residential Recovery Center without

reference to time constraints imposed by 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20-21). Under these

circumstances, petitioner has not shown exhaustion of her claim through the BOP’s

administrative appeals process would be futile. 

Accordingly, the Court finds petitioner is not entitled to waiver of the exhaustion

requirement, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 is hereby DISMISSED

without prejudice to petitioner’s filing a new habeas corpus action after exhausting the

BOP’s administrative appeals process. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 31, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04270-MMC Document 2 Filed 08/31/07 Page 3 of 3