Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00136/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00136-0/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 

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Titus T. Bride, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

Warden Susan McClintock, 

 Respondent.

CV-13-136-TUC-JGZ (JR)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 

 Pending before the Court is Titus T. Bride’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

(Doc. 1) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondent filed a Return and Answer 

(Doc. 9). 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 4:13-cv-00136-JGZ Document 18 Filed 12/11/14 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 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

I. BACKGROUND 

 A. Conviction and Sentence

 On April 14, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Washington, Bride was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 228 months for one count 

of Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine Base, two counts of Distribution of Cocaine Base, 

two counts of Distribution of Cocaine, and one count of Possession of a Firearm by a 

Convicted Felon. (See Declaration of Barbara Brown (“Brown Decl.”), ¶ 4, Att. 2.) 

Bride is incarcerated in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and is 

housed at the Federal Correction Institution in Safford, Arizona (“FCI Safford”). (Id., ¶ 

4.) His projected release date is January 30, 2021. (Id., ¶ 4, Att. 2.) Bride challenges his 

individualized BOP classification score. 

 B. Inmate Classification

 Program Statement 5100.08 (“PS 5100.08”) provides the policy and procedure 

regarding the BOP’s inmate classification system and is intended to “place each inmate in 

the most appropriate security level institution that also meets their program needs and is 

consistent with the Bureau’s mission to protect society.” PS 5100.08(1); Ch. 1, p. 1.1

 

The classification system uses a point scoring system to analyze an inmate’s 

characteristics. Id., Ch. 1, p. 2. Under the system, the points are tallied and the resulting 

security point score determines the security level of the facility in which the inmate will 

be held. For male prisoners, the point totals range from 0 to 24+, and the security levels 

range from minimum to high. Id.; Brown Decl. ¶ 5. 

 

1

 PS 5100.08 is available at http://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5100-008.pdf 

Case 4:13-cv-00136-JGZ Document 18 Filed 12/11/14 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 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 One of the factors considered in determining an inmate’s security point score is 

the severity of the inmate’s offense. This factor requires BOP to assign a number of 

points, ranging from 0 to 7, to reflect “the most severe documented instant offense 

behavior regardless of the conviction offense.” Id., Ch. 4, p. 7. Under PS 5100.08, any 

drug offender must be scored in the Greatest Severity category, and assigned 7 points, if 

the “offender was part of an organizational network and he or she organized or 

maintained ownership interest/profits from large-scale drug activity ***and*** The drug 

amount equals or exceeds” a specified amount for each type of drug. Id., App. A, p. 1; 

Brown Decl. ¶¶ 8-9. 

 The security point score is not the only factor used to determine the appropriate 

security level for an inmate. PS 5100.08 also provides for the consideration of Public 

Safety Factors (“PSF”). “The application of a PSF overrides security point scores to 

ensure the appropriate security level is assigned to an inmate, based on his or her 

demonstrated current or prior behavior.” Id., Ch.1, p. 2; Ch. 2, p. 5 (PSF definition). 

 In this case, Bride’s Presentence Report (“PSR”) identified him as a leader and 

organizer of a drug distribution network. Brown Decl. ¶ 10, Att. 6. The PSR reflects that 

the network was accountable for the distribution of 2798.5 grams of cocaine and 876.75 

grams of cocaine base, and attributed the drug quantities to Bride as a leader and 

organizer. Id. Based on the drug quantities, which are categorized as “large scale” under 

PS 5100.08, and his leadership role, Bride’s classification includes a Greatest Severity 

PSF. Bride contends that this determination is based on a misinterpretation of his PSR 

and the Greatest Severity Classification is improper under PS 5100.08. 

Case 4:13-cv-00136-JGZ Document 18 Filed 12/11/14 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 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

II. DISCUSSION 

 Bride raises one claim in his Petition, which he describes as follows: “Petitioner is 

challenging the failure of the BOP to properly interpret and apply the ‘Definition of Roles 

Involved In Drug Offenses’ under Program Statement 5100.08 as it relates to classifying 

the severity of an inmate[‘]s current status.” Memorandum of Law In Support of Petition 

For Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petitioner’s Memorandum”), p. 1. Bride argues that his 

Public Safety Factor classification of “Greatest Severity” is not supported by the relevant 

facts and, therefore, the BOP should be ordered to remove the classification. Id., pp. 4-8. 

B. Jurisdiction 

 Respondent contends that Bride’s Petition must be denied and the case be 

dismissed because the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review the 

BOP’s classification decision. The Court agrees. 

 A District Court has jurisdiction to consider a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if 

the petitioner is challenging the legality of the “manner, location, or conditions of the 

execution of a sentence of a sentence.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th

Cir. 2000). However, habeas jurisdiction is absent where a successful challenge to the 

manner, location or conditions would not accelerate the petitioner’s release. Ramirez v. 

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). Claims that merely challenge a petitioner’s 

classification by the BOP without potentially shortening the petitioner’s sentence are not 

cognizable in a federal habeas petition. See Estrada v. Chavez, CV 08-1358-PHX-NVW 

(LOA), 2009 WL 1383328 at *5 (D.Ariz. May 15, 2009) (holding a prisoner’s challenge 

to changes to the PS 5100.08 scoring system did not affect the execution of his sentence 

Case 4:13-cv-00136-JGZ Document 18 Filed 12/11/14 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 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

and, therefore, the court lacked habeas jurisdiction under § 2241); see also Franklin v. 

Gipson, CV 12-7411-R-PLA, 2013 WL 1339545 at *2 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 19, 2013); Lerma 

v. Gutierrez, CV 11-07996-PSG-VBK, 2012 WL 1320145 (C.D.Cal Mar. 7, 2012). 

 Additionally, in Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit 

held that 18 U.S.C. § 3625 precludes judicial review of “any determination” by BOP 

made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621-3624. Id. at 1227. Habeas challenges to such 

determinations are precluded because “[t]o find that prisoners can bring habeas petitions 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the BOP’s discretionary determinations made 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621 would be inconsistent with the language of 18 U.S.C. § 

3625.” Id. Although Reeb involved a challenge to a BOP determination that the 

petitioner could not participate in a residential drug abuse program as opposed to the 

security classification at issue here, the difference is immaterial because both 

determinations are made pursuant to § 3621. See PS 5100.08(1) (“The Bureau’s 

classification, designation and redesignation procedures are consistent with the statutory 

authority contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).”) Reeb also reiterated that “[a] habeas claim 

cannot be sustained based solely upon the BOP’s purported violation of its own program 

statement because noncompliance with a BOP program statement is not a violation of 

federal law.” 636 F.3d at 1227. 

 In sum, Petitioner does not present any grounds upon which the Court can grant 

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He does not challenge the duration of his sentence, but 

rather, his individualized BOP classification score. As such, the Court does not have 

jurisdiction to address his claim. 

Case 4:13-cv-00136-JGZ Document 18 Filed 12/11/14 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 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

III. RECOMMENDATION

 Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District 

Court, after its independent review, deny Bride’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

(Doc. 1). 

 This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. 

 However, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a 

copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the 

District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen (14) days within which to 

file a response to the objections. Replies shall not be filed without first obtaining leave to 

do so from the District Court. If any objections are filed, this action should be designated 

case number: CV 13-0136-TUC-JGZ. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or 

legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right 

to de novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir.2003)(en banc). 

 Dated this 11th day of December, 2014. 

Case 4:13-cv-00136-JGZ Document 18 Filed 12/11/14 Page 6 of 6