Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00978/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00978-2/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAUN TILLOTSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

DENNIS SMITH, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-00978 LJO SMS HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

[Docs. #14, 15, 16]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On July 27, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court.

Respondent filed an answer on October 23, 2006, and Petitioner filed his traverse on November 1,

2006. 

On April 17, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment claiming any further

delay would cause irreparable harm. Respondent replied on March 1, 2007, with a motion to dismiss

the petition as moot. Respondent stated he had conducted the inquiry Petitioner had requested as

relief. On May 8, 2007, the undersigned determined Respondent had conducted the evaluation

requested by Petitioner as shown in the form entitled, “Institutional Referral for CCC Placement.”

See Exhibit 3, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. As a result of the evaluation the Bureau of Prisons

Case 1:06-cv-00978-LJO -SMS Document 17 Filed 06/05/07 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

As noted in the Order to Respond of August 23, 2006, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases may be applied 1

to petitions for writ of habeas corpus other than those brought under § 2254 at the Court’s discretion. See Rule 1 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases.

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

(“BOP”) determined Petitioner would spend between 120-150 days in a Residential Re-entry Center.

Id. Accordingly, the undersigned granted the motion to dismiss as moot.

On May 18, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion opposing the motion to dismiss and a motion for

reconsideration of the Court’s order granting the motion to dismiss. Petitioner contends he has not

been provided a complete copy of Program Statement 7310.04, Community Correction Center

(CCC) Utilization and Transfer Procedure, (12-16-1998), that was referenced in Respondent’s

motion. In addition, he argues that the language from the portions he was provided appear to derive

from 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20, 570.21 and therefore conflict with 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). 

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, 

order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not 

have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud 

(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other 

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been

reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should 

have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the 

operation of the judgment.

Petitioner fails to meet this standard. The Court has considered Petitioner’s arguments and

finds them to be without merit. As stated above, Petitioner argues he was not given a complete copy

of Program Statement 7310.04. However, he was provided with pages 8-12 of the program

statement. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases instructs Respondent to include any 1

and all documents relevant to the resolution of the issues presented in the petition. The Court has

reviewed the complete program statement, and the portion of Program Statement 7310.04 provided

is the relevant portion necessary for determination of the issues presented. Thus, a complete copy

was not necessary under the instructions. 

Petitioner also argues that Program Statement 7310.04, like 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20, 570.21

conflicts with 18 U.S.C § 3621. However, Program Statement 7310.04 does not limit the BOP’s

discretion like §§ 570.20 and 570.21. It only requires the BOP conduct an assessment within 11 to 13

Case 1:06-cv-00978-LJO -SMS Document 17 Filed 06/05/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

months from the date of the projected release date, thereby assuring the inmate receives a timely

assessment. The program statement does not preclude the BOP from exercising its discretion and

conducting an assessment at any time during an inmate’s sentence. Therefore, the program statement

does not run afoul of 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). 

As to Petitioner’s request for an immediate transfer to an RRC or a determination that he be

granted at least 6 months in an RRC, his requests must be denied. There is no authority of which this

Court has been alerted to which would require the BOP to conduct an RRC eligibility review or

immediately transfer an inmate to an RRC upon an inmate’s demand. Rather, the BOP retains the

discretion to transfer the inmate at any time during his or her incarceration, and only has the duty to

consider an inmate for transfer in the last six months of the sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c); Elwood v.

Jeter, 386 F.3d 842, 847 (8 Cir.2004.). th

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00978-LJO -SMS Document 17 Filed 06/05/07 Page 3 of 3