Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00080/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00080-0/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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gerald Motley, 

 Petitioner, 

vs. 

Conrad Graber, 

 Respondent. 

 CV10-0080-TUC-CKJ (JR) 

 REPORT AND 

 RECOMMENDATION 

 

 

 Pending before the Court is Gerald Motley’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus (Doc. 1) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In accordance with the Rules of 

Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1), this matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge for report and 

recommendation. As explained below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the 

District Court, after an independent review of the record, dismiss the Petition with 

prejudice. 

Case 4:10-cv-00080-CKJ Document 15 Filed 02/12/13 Page 1 of 6
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

I. BACKGROUND 

 Petitioner Gerald Motley, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Federal 

Correctional Institution (FCI) in Lompoc, California. Doc. 14. He was convicted of 

Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and 

is serving a sentence of 120 months, followed by 9 years of supervised release. 

Petitioner is projected to be released from custody on October 10, 2015 via Good 

Conduct Time Release. Answer, Ex. 1, Att. 2. 

 Motley was previously housed at the Federal Prison Camp (FPC) in Herlong, 

California. On October 14, 2008, an investigation was conducted that resulted in the 

recommendation that Motley be transferred to a more secure institution. Id., Ex. 1, 

Att. 3, p. 5. Motley’s Unit Team submitted a Greater Security transfer request to the 

Designation and Sentence Computation Center (DSCC). Id. A Greater Security 

Management Variable (MGTV) was applied based on “security concerns which are 

not reflected in the inmate’s classification.” Id. The request was approved and 

Motley was assigned a MGTV in accordance with Program Statement 5100.08, 

entitled Inmate Security Designation and Custody Classification. Id., Ex. 1, Att. 3, p. 

5. The investigation indicated that Motely had used a cell phone to call a BOP Staff 

employee. Id., p. 3. Under the MGTV, Motely was subsequently transferred from 

FPC Herlong on January 14, 2009 and arrived at FCI Safford, Arizona, on February 

19, 2009. Id., Ex. 1, Att. 1. 

 

Case 4:10-cv-00080-CKJ Document 15 Filed 02/12/13 Page 2 of 6
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

II. LEGAL DISCUSSION 

A. Exhaustion

 A federal prisoner challenging any circumstance of imprisonment must 

exhaust all administrative remedies before filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986). Respondent concedes that 

Motley has exhausted his available administrative remedies. Answer, p. 3. 

B. Merits

 Congress has vested in the Attorney General the control and management of 

Federal corrections institutions. 18 U.S.C. § 4081. Under that authority, the 

Attorney General may classify inmates and provide for their proper government, 

discipline, treatment, care, rehabilitation, and reformation. 18 U.S.C. § 4001(b)(2). 

In turn, the Attorney General authorizes the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 

“to exercise or perform any of the authority, functions, or duties conferred or 

imposed upon the Attorney General by any law relating to the commitment, control, 

or treatment of persons . . . . 28 C.F.R. § 0.96. 

 The BOP accomplishes the classification and security designation process 

through Program Statement (PS) 5100.08, Inmate Security Designation and Custody 

Classification. See www.bop.gov. Under PS 5100.08, each inmate is assigned a 

security point score which is used to identify the type of institution required to house 

the particular inmate, whether it be minimum, low, medium, high, or administrative. 

Id. 

Case 4:10-cv-00080-CKJ Document 15 Filed 02/12/13 Page 3 of 6
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

The classification analysis also allows for the imposition of a management 

variable of greater security, referred to as an “MGTV,” when the assigned score does 

not reflect the inmate’s assessed security needs. PS 5100.08, Ch. 5. Application of a 

MGTV requires review and approval by the Designation and Sentence Computation 

Center (DSCC) located in Grand Prairie, Texas. Id. 

 In the Petition, Motley alleges that his rights to due process were violated 

when the MGTV was applied without finding him guilty of violating any prison 

rules. Petition, p. 4. He contends that he was never found guilty of possessing a 

cellphone, and therefore prison officials acted in an “arbitrary and capricious 

manner” when he was transferred. He requests that the MGTV be removed and that 

he be transferred back to a minimum security facility. Petition, Att., p. 1. However, 

the BOP was not required to provide Motley with any notice, a hearing, or an 

opportunity to be heard before applying the MGTV, and he is therefore not entitled to 

relief. 

 Inmates do not have “legitimate statutory or constitutional entitlement 

sufficient to invoke due process” regarding their classification. Moody v. Daggett, 

429 U.S. 78, 88 n. 9 (1976). In Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976), the Supreme 

Court expressed concern that finding prisoners have a liberty interest in their 

transfers that would trigger due process that “would subject to judicial review a wide 

spectrum of discretionary actions that traditionally have been the business of prison 

administrators rather than of federal courts.” Id. at 225. The Court was “unwilling to 

go so far” as to find a liberty interest when transfers are made for a number of 

Case 4:10-cv-00080-CKJ Document 15 Filed 02/12/13 Page 4 of 6
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

reasons including institutional security or the safety and welfare of an inmate. Id. 

Likewise, the Ninth Circuit has also held that prisoners have no constitutional right to 

a particular classification status. Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th

Cir. 1987) (citing Moody, 429 U.S. at 88 n. 9). 

 These decisions are consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s holding that BOP 

inmates have “no right to be at any particular prison.” Grayson v. Rison, 945 F.2d 

1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 1991). A previous decision adopted by this Court aptly 

summarized the application of this authority in a case much like that faced by 

Motley: 

 The assignment of an MGTV to Petitioner’s custody 

classification does not create a liberty interest entitling Petitioner to 

procedural protections of due process. Congress and the Attorney 

General gave the BOP wide discretion to create and maintain a 

classification system. The BOP created Program Statement 5100.08 as 

a guideline for classifying inmates. Prison officials complied with P.S. 

5100.08 in classifying Petitioner. . . . BOP’s use of its congressionallymandated discretion to classify Petitioner does not first require BOP to 

provide Petitioner with any due process. 

Leggins v. Duncan, 2010 WL 4916437, at *6 (D.Ariz. 2010); see aslo Estrada v. 

Chavez, 2009 WL 1383328, at *4-5 (D.Ariz. 2009). This summary applies with 

equal force in this case and Motley is therefore not entitled to relief. 

III. RECOMMENDATION 

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

Court, after its independent review, dismiss with prejudice Petitioner’s Amended 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). 

Case 4:10-cv-00080-CKJ Document 15 Filed 02/12/13 Page 5 of 6
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), any party may serve and 

file written objections within 14 days of being served with a copy of this Report and 

Recommendation. If objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. 

The parties are advised that any objections filed are to be identified with the 

following case number: CV10-0080-TUC-CKJ. 

 Dated this 12th day of February, 2013. 

 

 _____________________________________ 

Case 4:10-cv-00080-CKJ Document 15 Filed 02/12/13 Page 6 of 6