Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-02452/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-02452-0/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 

Bernard Battle, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Louis W Winn, Jr., 

Respondent. 

No. CV-13-02452-TUC-DCB (DTF)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 Before the Court is a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 

by a Person in Federal Custody [Doc. 1] (“Petition”). Petitioner Bernard Battle 

(“Petitioner”), who was formally confined at the United States Penitentiary in Tucson, 

Arizona (“USP Tucson”), alleges that his classification by the Federal Bureau of Prisons 

(“BOP”) is in violation of federal law. As more fully set forth below, the Magistrate 

Judge recommends that the District Court, after an independent review of the record, 

deny the Petition and dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.1

BACKGROUND 

 Petitioner is imprisoned as a result of three (3) separate sentences. See Doc. 10 at 

Ex. 1 at ¶ 4. Petitioner’s projected release date is January 24, 2026. See Id. at ¶ 7. In his 

Petition, Petitioner alleges that the BOP, in applying Program Statement 5100.8, applied 

 

1

 Summary dismissal of the Petition would also be appropriate given Petitioner’s failure to comply with a previous Order of the Court. Petitioner has failed to keep the Clerk of the Court informed of his current address and was previously cautioned that the failure to do so could result in dismiss of this action. See Doc. 5 at p. 2, ll. 9-13 (Order); Doc. 21 (returned mail). 

Case 4:13-cv-02452-DCB Document 22 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

a Sex Offender Public Safety Factor (“PSF”) to his classification and that application 

violates his rights afforded him by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States 

Constitution because (1) the allegations in his presentence report (“PSR”) were never 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) he was not convicted at trial of those 

allegations. See Doc. 1 at pp. 1 & 11-12. Respondent argues, inter alia, that this Court 

lacks jurisdiction over the Petition. See Doc. 10. This Court agrees that it lacks 

jurisdiction to consider the Petition. 

ANALYSIS 

 A District Court has jurisdiction over a § 2241 petition if a prisoner is challenging 

the legality of the “manner, location, or conditions of the execution of a sentence,” see 

Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 20000), and when a successful 

challenge to those prison conditions would accelerate the prisoner’s release. See Ramirez 

v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Preiser v Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 

487 (1973) (immediate or accelerated release from illegal custody is the essence of 

habeas corpus). Claims which pertain to a prisoner’s classifications, especially individual 

custodial classification scores, are not cognizable in a federal habeas petition. See 

Estrada v. Chavez, 2009 WL 1383328, at *5 (D. Ariz. May 15, 2009) (prisoner’s 

challenge to the P.S. 5100.08 scorecard did not affect the execution of his sentence and, 

therefore, the court lacked habeas jurisdiction over those claims under § 2241); Bride v. 

McClintock, 2015 WL 150241, at *3 (D. Ariz. Jan. 12, 2015) (relying upon, inter alia, 

Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2011), in determining that the district court 

lacked jurisdiction to hear § 2241 petition where petitioner was challenging the BOP’s 

application of PS 5100.08 in determining petitioner’s security classification); Franklin v. 

Gipson, 2013 WL 1339545 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2013) (court lacked jurisdiction to 

hear habeas petition challenge to classification because the prisoner “would not be 

released from confinement or even be provided with a lesser term of confinement; rather, 

at most, he would receive a different or lower classification score”); Lerma v. Gutierrrez, 

2012 WL 1320145 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012) (court lacks habeas jurisdiction even if the 

Case 4:13-cv-02452-DCB Document 22 Filed 11/03/16 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

classification designation impacted the prisoner’s housing determination). 

 Briefly, BOP institutions are classified into one of five security levels based upon 

the level of security and staff supervision the institution is able to provide. See Doc. 10 at 

Ex. 1. at ¶ 8. BOP inmates are assigned to an institution based, inter alia, upon the level 

of security and supervision the inmate needs. See Id. at Ex. 1 at ¶ 8. Separate from the 

BOP’s scoring procedure, an inmate may be placed in a facility with a difference security 

level than is indicated by the security point score if a PSF is present in the inmate’s case. 

See Id. at Ex. 1 at ¶ 11. By way of information, the BOP recognizes the following PSFs: 

Disruptive Group, Greatest Severity Offense, Sex Offender, Threat to Government 

Officials, Deportable Alien, Sentence Length, Violent Behavior, Serious Escape, Prison 

Disturbance, Juvenile Violence, and Serious Telephone Abuse. Id. In sum, the BOP’s 

decision to include Sex Offender PSF to Petitioner’s classification has no influence upon 

Petitioner’s projected release date. 

 Here, as Petitioner is challenging the BOP’s application of Program Statement 

5100.08 and its attendant decision to include a Sex Offender PSF classification, habeas 

jurisdiction is absent. See Estrada v. Chavez, supra, 2009 WL 1383328, at *4-5 

(petitioner did not challenge the execution of his sentence when he argued that ‘the 

application of Program Statement 5100.08 to classify him as a Medium Security inmate 

violate[d] the Due Process Clause []’ and sought an order directing the BOP to reclassify 

him to a lower security institution, because ‘[e]ven if th[e c]ourt concluded that 

Petitioner’s disciplinary infractions were erroneous or that his custody level was 

inaccurately calculated, at most, that would impact the security level of the institution at 

which [he] would be eligible to serve his term of imprisonment and to which he could be 

transferred. The length of his sentence would not change[.]’). 

 The Court concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to relief. 

RECOMMENDATION

 Based upon the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District 

Court, after its independent review, deny the Petition [Doc. 1] for lack of jurisdiction. 

Case 4:13-cv-02452-DCB Document 22 Filed 11/03/16 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

 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 have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this 

Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the 

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

Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have 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-

02452-DCB. 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 3rd day of November, 2016. 

Case 4:13-cv-02452-DCB Document 22 Filed 11/03/16 Page 4 of 4