Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00299/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00299-0/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 

Keith Allen Grasdalen, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

J. T. Shartle, Warden, 

Respondent. 

No. CV-15-00299-TUC-JGZ (BGM) 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner Keith Allen Grasdalen’s pro se

Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in 

Federal Custody (“Petition”) (Doc. 10). Respondent has filed his Return and Answer to 

Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to Dismiss 

Petition (“Response”) (Doc. 30).1

 Petitioner did not reply. Petitioner has also filed a 

Motion Seeking Gratuities (Doc. 26) and Motion for Compliance Regarding Gratuities 

(Doc. 28). Respondent addressed these motions in his Response (Doc. 30). As such, 

 1

 Respondent’s Response (Doc. 30) is properly an Answer as directed by the Court’s 

November 12, 2015 Order (Doc. 18). Respondent did not seek leave to file a dispositive motion 

as required by the Court’s November 12, 2015 Order (Doc. 18) at 8. As such, to the extent 

Respondent’s Response (Doc. 30) contains a “Motion to Dismiss,” such motion is improper and 

shall be denied. 

Case 4:15-cv-00299-JGZ Document 31 Filed 05/31/16 Page 1 of 6
- 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 

both motions are ripe for review. 

 Pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure,2

 this matter 

was referred to Magistrate Judge Macdonald for Report and Recommendation. The 

Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court dismiss the Petition (Doc. 10) for 

lack of jurisdiction. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 Petitioner was released from the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) custody on April 14, 

2016. See BOP Inmate Locator, available at http://www.bop.gov/inmateloc (last visited 

May 27, 2016). On April 23, 2008, Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of Possession 

of Child Pornography in violation of Section 2252A(a)(5)(B), Title 18 of the United 

States Code. Response (Doc. 30), Bowers Decl. (Exh. “A”), Judgment in a Criminal 

Case, United States v. Keith Allen Grasdalen, Case No. 5:07-CR-203-RDP-JEO (N.D. 

Ala.) (Attach. “1”) at 1. Petitioner was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment followed 

by lifetime supervised release. Id., Exh. “A,” Attach. “1” at 2–3. Petitioner was 

incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary Tucson (“USP–Tucson”) in Tucson, 

Arizona from February 21, 2014 until December 21, 2015. Id., Exh. “A,” Inmate History 

12/26/2015 (Attach. “2”) at 1. 

 Petitioner filed his initial petition (Doc. 1) on July 13, 2015, which was 

subsequently amended pursuant to Order of this Court. See Order 8/18/2015 (Doc. 9); 

Amended Petition (Doc. 10). Petitioner alleges four (4) grounds for relief: (1) despite 

 2

 Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. 

Case 4:15-cv-00299-JGZ Document 31 Filed 05/31/16 Page 2 of 6
- 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 

being in the final months of his sentence, he has not been afforded placement at a 

Community Corrections Center (“CCC”) or Residential Reentry Center (“RRC”) in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c); (2) because he has less than a year on his sentence, 

BOP’s failure to designate him to a CCC or RRC violates the Second Chance Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 17501, et seq. and 18 U.S.C. § 3621; (3) the Community Corrections Manager’s 

(“CCM”) decision to deny Petitioner’s placement in an RRC fails to conform with BOP’s 

regulations pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c); and (4) BOP’s failure to look for CCC/RRC 

placement outside of the Northern District of Alabama allegedly violates 18 U.S.C. § 

3621(b). Petition (Doc. 10) at 4–7; see also Preamble/Memorandum (Doc. 14). 

II. ANALYSIS 

A. Jurisdiction 

 “Federal courts are always ‘under an independent obligation to examine their own 

jurisdiction,’ . . . and a federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no 

jurisdiction.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting

FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 

(1990), overruled in part on other grounds by City of Littleton, Colo. v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, 

L.L.C., 541 U.S. 774 (2004)). The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) {provides a 

cause of action for persons ‘suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely 

affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute,’ 5 U.S.C. 

§ 702, but withdraws that cause of action to the extent that the relevant statute 

‘preclude[s] judicial review’ or the ‘agency action is committed to agency discretion by 

Case 4:15-cv-00299-JGZ Document 31 Filed 05/31/16 Page 3 of 6
- 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 

law,’ id. § 701(a).” Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1226 (9th Cir. 2011) (alterations in 

original). “Congress delegated to the BOP the duty to manage and regulate all federal 

penal and correctional institutions.” Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(1). Section 3625, 18 

U.S.C., titled “Inapplicability of the Administrative Procedure Act,” expressly states that 

“[t]he provisions of sections 554 and 555 and 701 through 706 of [the APA] do not apply 

to the making of any determination, decision or order under [18 U.S.C. §§ 3621–3625].” 

18 U.S.C. § 3625. As such, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has unequivocally held 

that: 

To find that prisoners can bring habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to 

challenge the BOP’s discretionary determinations made pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3621 would be inconsistent with the language of 18 U.S.C. § 

3625. Accordingly, any substantive decision by the BOP to admit a 

particular prisoner into [an RCC] . . . is not reviewable by the district court. 

Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 2011). 

 Petitioner’s Petition (Doc. 10) challenges decisions made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 

3621 & 3624. In light of the foregoing, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear those 

claims. Petitioner’s Petition (Doc. 10) will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

B. Motions for Gratuities 

 Petitioner seeks an Order from this Court directing Respondent to “give 

[Petitioner] the maxim[um] grantuite [sic] of $500.00 due to haveing [sic] no money on 

[his] account for the past 30 days.” Motion for Gratuities (Doc. 26) at 1; Motion for 

Compliance Regarding Gratuities (Doc. 28) at 2. Section 3624(d), 18 U.S.C., governs the 

allotment of money to a prisoner upon his or her release. This section provides in 

relevant part that: 

Case 4:15-cv-00299-JGZ Document 31 Filed 05/31/16 Page 4 of 6
- 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 

Upon the release of a prisoner[,] . . . the Bureau of Prisons shall furnish the 

prisoner with—(2) an amount of money, not more than $500, determined 

by the Director to be consistent with the needs of the offender and the 

public interest, unless the Director determines that the financial position of 

the offender is such that no sum should be furnished. 

18 U.S.C. § 3624(d). As discussed in Section II.A., supra, this Court is without 

jurisdiction to review “any determination, decision or order made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 3621–3624.” Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Petitioner’s motions for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

C. Conclusion 

 Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that it is without jurisdiction to review 

Petitioner’s Petition (Doc. 10) or his pending motions regarding gratuities (Docs. 26 & 

28). 

III. RECOMMENDATION 

 For the reasons delineated above, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the 

District Judge enter an order: 

(1) DISMISSING FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Petitioner’s Amended 

Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person 

in Federal Custody (Doc. 10); 

(2) DISMISSING FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Petitioner’s Motion 

Seeking Gratuities (Doc. 26) and Motion for Compliance Regarding 

Gratuities (Doc. 28); and 

(3) DENYING Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition (Doc. 30). 

Case 4:15-cv-00299-JGZ Document 31 Filed 05/31/16 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

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 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days after 

being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to 

another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). No replies shall be filed unless leave is granted from the District 

Court. If objections are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CV-15-

0299-TUC-JGZ. 

 Failure to file timely objections to any factual or legal determination of the 

Magistrate Judge may result in waiver of the right of review. The Clerk of the Court 

shall send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to all parties. 

 Dated this 31st day of May, 2016. 

Honorable Bruce G. Macdonald

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 4:15-cv-00299-JGZ Document 31 Filed 05/31/16 Page 6 of 6