Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00849/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00849-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN A. BRAUN )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

W. J. SULLIVAN, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:06-cv-00849-AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. 5]

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. Pending

before the court is Respondent’s motion to dismiss.

Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the

United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Writ of habeas corpus relief is available if a federal

prisoner can show he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Petitioner’s claims are proper under 28 U.S.C. §

Case 1:06-cv-00849-LJO-WMW Document 8 Filed 02/15/07 Page 1 of 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 2

2241 and not 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because they concern the manner, location, or conditions of

the execution of petitioner’s sentence and not the fact of petitioner’s conviction or sentence.

Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 331 (9th Cir.1990) (stating that a challenge to the execution

of a sentence is "maintainable only in a petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241"); Montano-Figueroa v. Crabtree, 162 F.3d 548, 549 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam)

(allowing a federal prisoner to use § 2241 to challenge the BOP's restitution policies).

Further, because Petitioner is challenging the execution of his sentence at Taft

Correctional Institution and Taft is within the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division,

the court has jurisdiction over this petition. See, Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677

(9th Cir. 1990). 

In his petition, Petitioner seeks relief form the execution of his sentence on the

ground that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) by regulation refuses to assess him under 18

U.S.C. Sction 3621(b) to determine if he is eligible for 6 months of pre-release placement at

a community corrections center. Petitioner asks the court to order the BOP to immediately

assess him as required by Section 3621(b) and, in good faith, to determine whether he should

be transferred to a community corrections center for the last 6 months of his sentence. He

asks that BOP be ordered to conduct the assessment without reference to the BOP policy

promulgated in December 2002 and without reference to 28 C.F.R. Section 570.21.

Respondent moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that it is moot. Specifically,

Respondent claims that the BOP has given Petitioner the relief he seeks, because it has

evaluated Petitioner “without reference to the time constraints imposed by 28 CFR Section

570.20 - 21 or the 2002 and 2005 Community Corrections Policies”. Respondent provides

an exhibit that demonstrates that such a review occurred in October of 2006. Respondent

therefore concludes because Petitioner has received the relief he requested, the petition has

become moot. Petitioner has not opposed the motion to dismiss.

Based on the foregoing, this court concludes that the petition for writ of habeas

Case 1:06-cv-00849-LJO-WMW Document 8 Filed 02/15/07 Page 2 of 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 3

corpus has become moot. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows:

1) Respondent’s motion be GRANTED;

2) this petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as moot; and

3) the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this

case. 

These Findings and Recommendation are 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 Recommendation.” 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: February 15, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00849-LJO-WMW Document 8 Filed 02/15/07 Page 3 of 3