Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02005/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02005-0/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

---

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

 The court notes that the Federal Prison Camp in Atwater is within the jurisdiction of the 1

Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS VINH QUACH,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2005 MCE DAD P

vs.

DENNIS SMITH, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner was sentenced in this court and

subsequently incarcerated at the McRae Correctional Facility in McRae, Georgia. Petitioner was

later transferred to the Atwater Federal Prison Camp in Atwater, California, where he is currently

incarcerated. By this petition, petitioner challenges the execution of his sentence rather than the 1

fact of his conviction or sentence. 

On 2005, petitioner pled guilty to distribution of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1) and engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from unlawful activity in

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02005-MCE -DAD Document 3 Filed 10/04/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a). Petitioner was sentenced to concurrent terms of 60 months

imprisonment. The court also made the following recommendations:

The Court recommends that the defendant be incarcerated at a

camp facility either in Colorado or in the alternative at Atwater or

Lompoc, California, but only insofar as this accords with security

classification and space availability. The Court also makes the

additional recommendation that the defendant participate in the

500-Hour Bureau of Prisons Substance Abuse Treatment Program.

(Pet., Attach. Judgment at 2.) Petitioner contends that the Atwater prison camp does not offer a

substance abuse treatment program or a “RDAP” program as was recommended by the

sentencing judge. Petitioner claims that the Board of Prisons failed to correctly exercise its

discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). He seeks a “redesignation” to a halfway house or a

community corrections center for the remainder of his sentence.

Petitioner asserts that he is not required to exhaust administrative remedies

“because he is not challenging the application of the BOP regulations, but their validity, therefore

exhaustion would be futile.” (Pet., Attach. at 1.) Although § 2241 does not specifically require

the exhaustion of available remedies before filing petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, the Ninth

Circuit requires “as a prudential matter, that habeas petitioners exhaust available judicial and

administrative remedies before seeking relief under § 2241.” Castro-Cortez v. I.N.S., 239 F.3d

1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted), abrogated in part on other grounds by FernandezVargas v. Gonzales, U.S. , 126 S. Ct. 2422 (2006). The requirement may be waived in

limited circumstances because it is not a jurisdictional prerequisite. Id., see, e.g. Laing v.

Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2004) (listing circumstances when waiver of

exhaustion requirement may be appropriate). 

Here, petitioner asserts in conclusory fashion that the exhaustion of administrative

remedies would be futile. Petitioner has not sought any administrative review of his Atwater

Prison Camp designation and does not explain why pursuing administrative remedies would be

futile. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3621(b) provides:

Case 2:06-cv-02005-MCE -DAD Document 3 Filed 10/04/07 Page 2 of 4
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

 The Bureau of Prisons has an administrative remedy procedure which allows “an

2

inmate to seek formal review of an issue relating to any aspect of his/her own confinement.” 28

C.F.R. § 542.10. See also 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.13 to 542.15. 

3

(b) Place of imprisonment. - - The Bureau of Prisons shall

designate the place of the prisoner’s imprisonment. The Bureau

may designate any available penal or correctional facility that

meets minimum standards of health and habitability established by

the Bureau, whether maintained by the Federal Government or

otherwise and whether within or without the judicial district in

which the person was convicted, that the Bureau determines to be

appropriate and suitable, considering - - 

(1) the resources of the facility contemplated;

(2) The nature and circumstances of the 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 or

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.

 In designating the place of imprisonment or making transfers

under this subsection, there shall be no favoritism given to

prisoners of high social or economic status. The Bureau may at

any time, having regard for the same matters, direct the transfer of

a prisoner from one penal or correctional facility to another. The

Bureau shall make available appropriate substance abuse treatment

for each prisoner the Bureau determines has a treatable condition

or substance addiction or abuse.

The court does not find that exhaustion of administrative remedies would be futile as petitioner

has made no allegations that the BOP has specific regulations or policies that are preventing or

interfering with petitioner’s placement in an appropriate facility. Therefore, the court will

recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies. Following the exhaustion of remedies, petitioner may file a new petition with the 2

Fresno Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California if he remains

incarcerated at the Atwater Federal Prison Camp.

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02005-MCE -DAD Document 3 Filed 10/04/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's petition for a

writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 3, 2007.

DAD:4

quac2005.156

Case 2:06-cv-02005-MCE -DAD Document 3 Filed 10/04/07 Page 4 of 4