Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01315/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01315-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1 As petitioner is incarcerated within the Northern District of California and

her petition challenges the execution of her federal sentence, venue is proper in this

district. See Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249-50 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.10\Pua01315_osc-2241.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NANCY TAN PUA,

Petitioner,

 vs.

PAUL COPENHAVER, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-01315 JW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a federal prisoner incarcerated at the Federal Correctional

Institution in Dublin, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1

 Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

challenging the execution of a federal sentence on the ground that the sentence is

Case 5:10-cv-01315-EJD Document 3 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.10\Pua01315_osc-2241.wpd 2

being executed “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th

Cir. 1984). The court should “award the writ or issue an order directing the

respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from

the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28

U.S.C. § 2243.

B. Applicable Law

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has the authority, under 18 U.S.C. §

3261(b), to designate the location of an inmate’s imprisonment. Prior to December

13, 2002, the BOP’s policy was to exercise its discretion in allowing prisoners to

serve part or all of their imprisonment in a Residential Reentry Center (“RRC”) . 

Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir. 2008). As of December 13,

2002, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel ended that practice by

issuing a legal opinion that § 3621(b) does not authorize inmate placement in an

RRC for an entire term, for the reason that such placement does not constitute

imprisonment. Id.

In the light of the above-referenced opinion, the BOP, on December 20, 2002,

changed its policy, by limiting an inmate’s eligibility for placement in an RRC to the

shorter of either six months or the final ten percent of the inmate’s sentence. Id.

Subsequently, that policy was invalidated by the First and Eighth Circuits, which

found the policy failed to recognize the BOP’s discretion to transfer inmates at

anytime to an RRC. Id. In response, the BOP decided to “exercise its discretion

categorically to limit inmates’ community confinement to the last ten percent of the

prison sentence being served, not to exceed six months.” Id. (quoting 69 Fed. Reg.

51213). In 2005, that BOP rule was codified at 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20 and 570.21. Id.

On April 9, 2008, the Second Chance Act was signed into law, authorizing

the BOP to consider placing inmates in an RRC for up to the final twelve months of

their sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3624. On September 4, 2008, the Ninth Circuit decided

Case 5:10-cv-01315-EJD Document 3 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.10\Pua01315_osc-2241.wpd 3

Rodriguez, supra, holding the rules published by the BOP at 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20

and 570.21 conflicted with the Congressional intent of 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), which

statute sets forth five factors the BOP must consider when making placement and

transfer decisions. See Rodriguez, 541 F.3d at 1186. As determined by the Ninth

Circuit, inmates must be considered for RRC placement based on the five factors of

§ 3621(b) and, consequently, the BOP cannot reference 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20 and

570.21 in considering an inmate for RRC placement. Id. at 1189.

C. Petitioner’s Claims

In the instant petition, petitioner claims the BOP has failed to appropriately

place her in accordance with the five criteria set forth in § 3621(b), pursuant to

Rodriguez, 541 F.3d 1180. (Pet. 1.) Petitioner asserts that the BOP should

redesignate her to Cornell Oakland Pre-Release Center, where her needs would be

better served. (Id. at 5 and 10.) Petitioner claims that she has had “successive and

serious medical conditions that have been caused or exacerbated by her incarceration

and... neglect due to the shortage or absence of resources as SPC Dublin.” (Id. at 3.) 

Petitioner alleges that she has exhausted her administrative remedies with

respect to her claims. (Id. at 10-11.)

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the 

petition and all attachments thereto on respondent and respondent’s attorney, the

United States Attorney for the Northern District of California. The clerk shall also

send a copy of the petition to the Attorney General of the United States in

Washington, D.C. 

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within

thirty (30) days of the issuance of this order, an answer responding to the

allegations of the petition and showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not

Case 5:10-cv-01315-EJD Document 3 Filed 07/22/10 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.10\Pua01315_osc-2241.wpd 4

be issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of

all documents that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

petition.

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, she shall do so by filing a

traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within thirty (30) days of her

receipt of the answer. 

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

July 21, 2010 

Case 5:10-cv-01315-EJD Document 3 Filed 07/22/10 Page 4 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NANCY TAN PUA,

Petitioner,

 v.

PAUL COPENHAVER, Warden,

Respondent. /

Case Number: CV10-01315 JW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Nancy Tan Pua #32844-112

FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER

SATELLITE PRISON CAMP

5675 8th Street

Dublin, CA 94568

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

7/22/2010 7/22/2010 /s/

Case 5:10-cv-01315-EJD Document 3 Filed 07/22/10 Page 5 of 5