Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01138/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01138-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDMUND PRESCOTT,

Petitioner,

v.

CHARLES DEROSA,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-cv-01138 LJO DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 6, 2007. (Court

Doc. 1.) Petitioner is challenging the execution of his sentence on equal protection grounds, i.e.

that, as a deportable alien, he is being denied the same opportunities and programs as other

inmates who are not deportable aliens. As a result, Petitioner contends that he “is being forced to

serve a harsher time than the Citizens of the United States,” because he is unable to participate in

certain programs and receives no reduction of his sentence. Petitioner’s claim fails on the merits

and should be summarily dismissed.

In McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1183-1186 (9 Cir. 1999), the Ninth Circuit th

specifically held that the denial of such benefits to deportable aliens, such as Petitioner, with

immigration detainers does not violate the Constitution as this exclusion is “rationally related to

the BOP’s legitimate interest in preventing prisoners from fleeing detainers while participating in

Case 1:07-cv-01138-LJO-DLB Document 4 Filed 09/11/07 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

2

community treatment programs.” McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d at 1186 (holding that the Bureau

of Prisons did not violate the defendants’ statutory and constitutional rights when it denied their

requests for an 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) sentence reduction on the basis of an Immigration and

Naturalization Service detainer lodged against them); see Soto v. Gilkey, 2006 WL 2013584 *2

(E.D. Cal. July 17, 2006) (following McLean); U.S. v. Madrigal-Madrigal, 2005 WL 2271930 *

1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2005) (same). Accordingly, Petitioner’s claim is without merit and should

be dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment.

This Findings and Recommendations is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 10, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01138-LJO-DLB Document 4 Filed 09/11/07 Page 2 of 2