Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00006/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00006-6/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

Originally, these centers were called Community Corrections Centers (“CCC’s”), the term 1

Petitioner uses in his petition. However, these centers are now called “residential re-entry centers” or

“RRC’s.” Therefore, the Court will refer to them as RRC’s. 

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW D. HORN, ) 

 )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

WARDEN BERNIE ELLIS, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

1:06-cv-00006-LJO-TAG HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF

JURISDICTION; ORDER TO FILE

OBJECTIONS WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS 

(Doc. 19)

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 14, 2005, Petitioner filed his petition in the Eastern District of Washington. 

On January 3, 2006, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. 

(Doc. 1). The petition contends that Petitioner is in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”),

but that the BOP “refuses to exercise its discretion to allow him the ‘full benefit’ of 6 months of prerelease placement at a Community Corrections Center.” (Doc. 1, p. 1). Petitioner contends that, by 1

regulation, the BOP “does not grant more than 10% of an overall term of imprisonment under its

prerelease program in a CCC, even though federal law allows BOP to designate federal inmates to

CCC facilities for a period of 6 months.” (Id. at p. 2). Petitioner seeks an order from the Court

Case 1:06-cv-00006-LJO -TAG Document 22 Filed 07/19/07 Page 1 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

directed to BOP that Respondent “in good faith, to consider the appropriateness of transferring the

petitioner to a community confinement center in light of the factors set forth in Section 3621(b) and

any individual factors deemed appropriate by the BOP, without reference to the BOP policy

promulgated in December 2002 and without reference to 28 C.F.R. § 570.21.” (Id. at p. 6). 

On April 21, 2006, the District Court issued an order requiring the BOP to show cause why

the writ should not be granted. (Doc. 13, p. 15). The Court further ordered that Respondent

“immediately and in good faith determine whether Petitioner should be transferred to a CCC for

more than forty-three days in completion of his prison sentence.” (Id.). Such a determination was to

be made “without reference to the BOP’s 2002 and 2005 policies, including 28 C.F.R. § 570.20-21.” 

(Id.). On May 9, 2006, Respondent filed a response to the Court’s show cause order, indicating that

it had complied with the Court’s order by re-assessing Petitioner’s RRC placement and increasing it

to forty-seven days. (Doc. 16, p. 3). Based on that determination, Respondent argued that the

petition was now moot. (Id.). On October 14, 2006, Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss,

alleging that because Petitioner had now been released from custody, the petition was moot and the

Court lacks jurisdiction to proceed. (Doc. 19). Petitioner did not respond to the motion to dismiss.

JURISDICTION

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. See, e.g., Capaldi v. Pontesso,

135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998); 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); Brown v. United States, 610

F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1980). 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, manner. See, e.g., Clark v. Floyd, 80 F.3d 371, 372, 374 (9th Cir. 1996)

(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 v.

Case 1:06-cv-00006-LJO -TAG Document 22 Filed 07/19/07 Page 2 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 479 (3rd Cir. 1990) (arguing Bureau of Prisons erred in determining whether

petitioner could receive credit for time spent in state custody); Brown, 610 F.2d at 677 (challenging

content of inaccurate pre-sentence report used to deny parole). 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. Brown, 610 F.2d at 677. 

In this case, Petitioner alleges that BOP’s policy limiting placement in an RRC to ten percent

of his sentence violates federal law. Petitioner is challenging the legality of the manner in which his

sentence is being executed. Thus, his petition is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In addition,

because at the time the petition was filed Petitioner was incarcerated at the Taft Correctional

Institution, Taft, California, which is within the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, this

Court has jurisdiction to proceed to the merits of the petition.

EXHAUSTION

A preliminary question is whether petitioner has exhausted available administrative remedies. 

Before filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, a federal prisoner challenging any circumstance of

imprisonment must first exhaust all administrative remedies. Western Radio Services Co. v. Espy,

79 F.3d 896, 899 (9th Cir. 1996); Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986); Chua Han

Mow v. United States, 730 F.2d 1308, 1313 (9th Cir. 1984); Ruviwat v. Smith, 701 F.2d 844, 845

(9th Cir. 1983). 

The exhaustion prerequisite for filing a § 2241 petition is judicially created; it is not a

statutory requirement. Brown v. Rison, 895 F.2d 533, 535 (9th Cir. 1990), overruled on other

grounds, Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 54-55 (1995). Thus, “[b]ecause exhaustion is not required by

statute, it is not jurisdictional.” Brown, 895 F.2d at 535. If a petitioner has not properly exhausted

his claims, the district court, in its discretion, may either “excuse the faulty exhaustion and reach the

merits, or require the petitioner to exhaust his administrative remedies before proceeding in court.” 

Id.; McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144-45 (1992), superceded on other grounds, 42 U.S.C.

§1997(e). 

One of the purposes of administrative exhaustion is to allow the agency an opportunity to

remedy its own mistakes before being haled into court, and this applies with particular force when

Case 1:06-cv-00006-LJO -TAG Document 22 Filed 07/19/07 Page 3 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

the challenged action involves an exercise of the agency’s discretionary power. See, McCarthy v.

Madigan, 503 U.S. at 145. Thus, exhaustion of administrative remedies would be futile and should

be excused if the agency lacks authority to grant the requested relief or has predetermined the issued

before it. See id. at 148. 

Here, although the parties did not address exhaustion, futility is, as mentioned previously, an

exception to the exhaustion requirement. Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2004). 

In the instant action, it is apparent that it would be futile for Petitioner to exhaust his administrative

remedies because he alleges he is being denied an RRC placement prior to the last ten percent of his

prison sentence based on formally-adopted BOP regulations, the validity of which BOP strenuously

maintains. In the Court’s view, therefore, Petitioner’s exhaustion of his administrative remedies is

not a pre-requisite to the District Court’s jurisdiction over the case because of the BOP’s intractable

and immutable policy against the relief sought.

DISCUSSION

The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the

Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 104

S.Ct. 373, 374-75 (1983); N.A.A.C.P., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352

(9th Cir. 1984). A case becomes moot if the “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties

lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982). The

federal court are “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of the litigants

before them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971). 

Here, the instant petition requested an order from this Court directed to the BOP requiring it

to re-assess Petitioner’s assignment date to an RRC facility, in anticipation of his release from

prison. It appears that Respondent indeed conducted such an assessment, based on Respondent’s

May 9, 2006 response to the District Court’s order to show cause. It further appears that Petitioner

was subsequently released from custody of the BOP, having completed his sentence. Thus, there is

no further relief the Court can afford to Petitioner. Therefore, the Court agrees with Respondent that

the petition is now moot. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00006-LJO -TAG Document 22 Filed 07/19/07 Page 4 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 5

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS as follows:

1. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19), be GRANTED;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), be DISMISSED as moot; and

3. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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

fifteen (15) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the

District 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 District 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: July 19, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00006-LJO -TAG Document 22 Filed 07/19/07 Page 5 of 5