Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00261/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00261-2/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

---

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR ZUNIGA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00261 AWI SMS HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT

[Doc. #8]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On May 11, 2007, this Court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Respondent was

ordered to consider the appropriateness of transferring Petitioner to a Residential Re-entry Center

(“RRC” or “CCC”) in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), not excluding any other

factors deemed appropriate by the BOP, without reference to the BOP policy promulgated in

December 2002 and without reference to the BOP’s February 14, 2005, amendment to 28 C.F.R.

§ 570.21. Respondent was directed to make this determination within fourteen days of the date of

service of the order and notify the Court within thirty days after the determination had been made.

On May 14, 2007, Respondent filed a verification of compliance. Respondent has submitted a

copy of the form “Institutional Referral for CCC Placement” which shows Petitioner was considered

for transfer to an RRC. According to the form, it was determined on March 8, 2007, that Petitioner

Case 1:07-cv-00261-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 11/07/07 Page 1 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

would spend between 30-60 days in an RRC, and this determination was made in line with the

Court’s ruling in this case. 

On October 22, 2007, Petitioner filed motion to enforce the judgment. Petitioner complains

that he has not received the full six (6) month placement in an RRC as ordered by the Court.

Petitioner misunderstands the Court’s previous order. The petition was granted as noted by

Petitioner; however, the Court did not order Respondent to place Petitioner in an RRC for a period of

six months. Rather, the Court ordered Respondent to “consider” the appropriateness of transferring

Petitioner to an RRC in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) without reference to the 

policies promulgated in 2002 and 2005. Placement in an RRC remains at the discretion of the BOP

pursuant to § 3621(b). As evidenced by the verification submitted by Respondent, the BOP did in

fact consider Petitioner for placement in an RRC pursuant to the Court’s order granting the petition.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Petitioner’s motion to enforce the judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

9h0d30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00261-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 11/07/07 Page 2 of 2