Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00971/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00971-1/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

jr 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEJANDRO ORDAZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

DENNIS SMITH, Warden, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:07-cv-00971-LJO-TAG HC

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO FILE

A RESPONSE ADDRESSING THE MERITS

OF THE PETITION

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO

SUBMIT NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SERVE DOCUMENTS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 6, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 1). Petitioner

alleges that, as an inmate at the Federal Prison Camp, Atwater, California, the Bureau of Prisons

("BOP") has employed a "de facto scheme" of regulations to circumvent the requirements of 18

U.S.C. § 3621(b), which vests discretion in the BOP to determine if an inmate is eligible for six

months of pre-release placement at a Residential Release Program ("RRP"). (Doc. 1, pp. 6-7). 

Petitioner alleges that the BOP utilizes its regulations as essentially a subterfuge to avoid what

Petitioner maintains is the clear intent of § 3621(b), and thus BOP's failure to provide a meaningful

assessment is in violation of federal law. (Id.). Petitioner seeks an order from this Court that

invalidates Program Statement 7310.04 as a de facto scheme, and ordering the BOP to consider the

appropriateness of transferring Petitioner to an RRC. (Id. at p. 9). 

Case 1:07-cv-00971-LJO-TAG Document 4 Filed 01/11/08 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

27

28

jr 2

DISCUSSION

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

States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. While a federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or

constitutionality of his conviction must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

2255, a petitioner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of that sentence's execution must

bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d

1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998); United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1994); Kingsley v.

Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30 n.5 (2nd Cir. 1991); United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893-94

(6th Cir. 1991); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478-79 (3rd Cir. 1991); United States v.

Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185, 186-87 (8th Cir. 1987); Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th

Cir. 1990). 

To receive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 a petitioner in federal custody must show that his

sentence is being executed in an illegal, but not necessarily unconstitutional, manor. See, e.g., Clark

v. Floyd, 80 F.3d 371, 372, 374 (9th Cir. 1995) (contending time spent in state custody should be

credited toward federal custody); Jalili, 925 F.2d at 893-94 (asserting petitioner should be housed at

a community treatment center); Barden, 921 F.2d at 479 (arguing Bureau of Prisons erred in

determining whether petitioner could receive credit for time spent in state custody); Tubwell, 37

F.3d 175 (alleging error in parol revocation); Hutchings, 835 F.2d at185-86 (claiming Board of

Parole mistakenly denied petitioner's release); Brown, 610 F.2d at 677 (challenging content of

inaccurate pre-sentence report used to deny parol). A petitioner filing a petition for writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must file the petition in the judicial district of the petitioner's

custodian. Hutchings, 835 F.2d at187; Brown, 610 F.2d at 677. 

In this case, Petitioner is alleging that the BOP has failed to properly apply 18 U.S.C. §

3621(b), and has created a regulatory "scheme" to circumvent the intent of federal law as set forth in

§ 3621(b). Petitioner is thus challenging the execution of his sentence rather than the imposition of

that sentence. Therefore, his petition is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In addition, because

Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp, Atwater, California, which is within

Case 1:07-cv-00971-LJO-TAG Document 4 Filed 01/11/08 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

27

28

The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases may be applied to petitions for writ of habeas corpus other than those

1

brought under § 2254 at the Court’s discretion. See, Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Civil Rule 81(a)(2)

provides that the rules are “applicable to proceedings for . . . habeas corpus . . . to the extent that the practice in such

proceedings is not set forth in statutes of the United States and has heretofore conformed to the practice of civil actions.”

Fed. R. Civ. P 81(a)(2). 

In the event Respondent is unable to obtain a photocopy of prisoner appeals and intends to file a computerized 2

printout of the disposition, Respondent must also provide the Court with translation of the internal codes used in the printout.

To the extent the claims concern prison policy and procedure not accessible to the Court by electronic means

(Westlaw/Lexis), Respondent must provide the Court with a photocopy of all prison policies and/or procedures at issue in

the case. This includes any internal prison policies of which a prisoner complains and is subject to. 

Counsel for the “Institution” means private Counsel representing contracted facilities such as Taft Correctional 3

Institution, (Wackenhut Corrections Corporation), or California City Correctional Center (Corrections Corporation of

America). 

jr 3

the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, this Court has jurisdiction to proceed to the

merits of the petition. See U.S. v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir.1984). 

Because Petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violations of rights

are proved, Respondents will be ordered to file a response. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; cf. Rule 4 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondents shall include with the response any and all

transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the petition. 

ORDER

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court 1

HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Respondent SHALL FILE an ANSWER addressing the merits of the Petition within

SIXTY (60) days of the date of service of this order. Respondent shall include with

the response any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the resolution of

the issues presented in the petition, including copies of appeals taken by a prisoner

within the prison and before the Bureau of Prisons. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 2

Section 2254 Cases. The Court recognizes that Counsel on behalf of the Government

and/or the Institution may wish to respond on separate issues raised in the Petition. 3

However, the Court will accept only one (1) “Answer.” Such Answer SHALL

CONTAIN all argument with respect to all of the issues raised in the Petition,

whether formulated by Counsel for the Government or the Institution. 

Case 1:07-cv-00971-LJO-TAG Document 4 Filed 01/11/08 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

27

28

jr 4

2. Respondent SHALL FILE a Notice of Appearance within TWENTY (20) days of the

date of service of this Order. The Notice SHALL indicate the name of the

individual(s) who will be representing the Government and/or the Institution. The

Notice is necessary to ensure that the appropriate counsel for Respondent is being

served by the Court. The submission of the Notice of Appearance will terminate

Court service on those listed in paragraph 4.

3. Petitioner’s TRAVERSE, if any, is due on or before THIRTY (30) days from the

date Respondent’s Answer is filed.

4. The Clerk of the Court SHALL serve a copy of this Order along with a copy of the

Petition and all exhibits on the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern

District of California, an agent for the appropriate Correctional Institution if

applicable, and the United States Bureau of Prisons. 

All motions shall be submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument unless

otherwise ordered by the Court. Local Rule 78-230(h). All provisions of Local Rule 11-110 are

applicable to this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00971-LJO-TAG Document 4 Filed 01/11/08 Page 4 of 4