Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00260/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00260-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS JIMINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

FELICIA PONCE,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-0260 KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner is a federal prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This action is proceeding on the original petition 

filed January 30, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner challenges an administrative finding that he 

escaped while he was under home confinement, resulting in the loss of good conduct time credits 

and transfer back to federal custody. (Id. at 7-13.) Petitioner’s current release date is May 24, 

2015.

For the following reasons, respondent is ordered to file further briefing.

Background

Petitioner was convicted in the Southern District of California of conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. (ECF No. 14-1 at 

2.) Petitioner was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment. (Id.) Petitioner’s current projected 

release date is May 24, 2015, via good conduct time. (Id.)

Case 2:15-cv-00260-KJN Document 15 Filed 05/15/15 Page 1 of 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

2

On April 11, 2014, petitioner was on home confinement under the supervision of the 

Correctional Alternatives, Inc., a Residential Re-entry Center (“RRC”) in San Diego, California. 

(Id. at 2-3.) Staff members from the facility made routine home confinement calls on that day, 

but discovered that petitioner’s whereabouts were unknown. (Id.) Petitioner was placed on 

“escape” status. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner was discovered four days later, when he was apprehended 

attempting to return to the United States from Mexico. (Id. at 44-45.) 

On May 6, 2014, petitioner appeared before a Center Discipline Committee (“CDC”), and 

was found to have committed the prohibited act of escape. (Id. at 3-4.) The CDC reviewed the 

evidence and noted petitioner’s claim that he left the country for emergency care, was 

unconscious, and could not contact the RRC to report his whereabouts. (Id. at 4.) The CDC also 

found that once stable, petitioner was “well oriented” and had access to a telephone. (Id.) At that 

point, the CDC found that petitioner had a duty to notify the staff of his whereabouts yet 

continued to remain at large for several days and violated the established limits of his 

confinement. (Id.) As a result, the CDC recommended a disciplinary transfer, and the matter was 

sent to the Bureau Of Prisons (“BOP”) Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”) for final action. 

(Id.) 

The DHO agreed with the CDC’s findings and sanctioned petitioner to a loss of 41 days 

good conduct time and removal from the RRC and RDAP programs. (Id.) 

Discussion

Petitioner argues, in part, that there was insufficient evidence to support the committee’s 

finding that he escaped. The disciplinary report, attached to respondent’s response, describes the 

evidence on which it based its guilty finding. First, the report set forth a summary of petitioner’s 

statement:

On Friday 4/11/14 I was feeling really ill. My fiancé helped me get 

to the car so I could get medical treatment. I passed out in the car, 

and she took me to a clinic in Mexico for treatment. She didn’t 

realize I couldn’t travel to Mexico. I showed her my certificate 

from completing the DAP and she thought I was done with the 

system. I had tried to be treated in the U.S. but I was rejected at 

several clinics, including Logan Heights. She took me to Mexico 

because she knew they would take care of me. I was basically 

unconscious upon my arrival at the hospital. I have proof from my 

Case 2:15-cv-00260-KJN Document 15 Filed 05/15/15 Page 2 of 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

3

doctor to certify the state I was in. I remained in the hospital for 3 

days and I didn’t wake up until Sunday. When I woke up, I 

realized I wasn’t in the U.S. so I asked to be discharged 

immediately. Even if I wanted to call the Facility there was no 

phone available and our cell phones don’t work in Mexico. Once I 

left the clinic, I headed right back to the U.S. I was stopped at the 

border and taken into custody. I was only a few days away from 

release. Why would I intentionally do this? Please look over my 

DAP summary. I did everything right. 

(ECF No. 14-1 at 44-45.) 

The report states that the committee also considered the following documentary evidence: 

1) resident acknowledgement receipt; 2) medical statements and records submitted by the inmate; 

3) translation of medical statements; 4) drug treatment records submitted by the inmate; and 5) 

inmate file. (Id. at 45.) Some of these documents are attached as exhibits to the petition. 

The report also indicated that it considered the following additional information. The 

committee denied plaintiff’s request to call Case Manager Karla Bolanos as a witness. (Id. at 47.) 

Petitioner claimed that Ms. Bolanos could have attested to his good conduct and weight loss. 

(Id.) The Committee stated that it would submit that petitioner’s conduct was good prior to the 

incident, and that petitioner had weight loss during his residency at the facility. (Id.) 

The committee also accepted a telephone call from petitioner’s fiancé. (Id.) Petitioner’s 

fiancé reiterated and supported the statements petitioner made to the committee. (Id.) 

In finding petitioner guilty, the committee noted that, 

Although the evidence confirmed that you were hospitalized and 

apparently unable to notify the Facility of your whereabouts on 

4/11/14, the very same evidence confirmed that you stabilized on 

4/12/14. According to the attending physician, you reached a “well 

oriented” state of mind, and you had access to a telephone upon 

request.

The Committee found that you had a duty to notify the Facility of 

your whereabouts when you returned to a “well oriented” state of 

mind. Your inmate file records reflect that you failed to make such 

contact. Instead, the evidence indicated that you consciously chose 

to remain unaccountable for several days, and violated the 

established limits of your confinement. 

(Id. at 48.) 

The undersigned has reviewed the record and cannot find the record stating that petitioner 

had stabilized on April 12, 2014 and was “well oriented.” The translation of the statement by 

Case 2:15-cv-00260-KJN Document 15 Filed 05/15/15 Page 3 of 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

4

petitioner’s treating physician does not state that petitioner stabilized on April 12, 2014 and was 

“well oriented.” (ECF No. 1 at 15.) The undersigned also cannot locate the record stating that 

petitioner had access to a telephone upon request while hospitalized in Mexico. According to 

petitioner, his cellphone did not work while he was in Mexico and the hospital/clinic did not have 

a telephone with long distance services. (ECF No. 1 at 30.) Petitioner also states that he was 

“passed out” at the hospital until April 14, 2014, i.e., he was not “well oriented” on April 12, 

2014. (Id.)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before May 21, 2015, respondent 

shall direct the court to the record containing the statements by petitioner’s physician that he was 

stabilized on April 12, 2014 and “well oriented,” and the record stating that petitioner had access 

to a telephone; if these records are not in the court record, respondent shall provide them to the 

court within that time.

Dated: May 15, 2015

Jim260.fb

Case 2:15-cv-00260-KJN Document 15 Filed 05/15/15 Page 4 of 4