Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00904/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00904-1/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

William Scott Sours, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dennis Smith, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0904-PHX-SRB (ECV)

SUPPLEMENT TO

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Following the court’s issuance of its Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) on

January 25, 2011, the court became aware of a recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

decision that further supports its recommendation to deny Petitioner’s habeas petition.

Because the decision addresses some of the same allegations Petitioner has raised, the court

hereby supplements its Report and Recommendation with a discussion of the case.

In Sacora v. Thomas, 2010 WL 4925437 (9th Cir. Dec. 6, 2010), the Ninth Circuit

considered whether Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policies regarding release to a residential reentry center (RRC) are consistent with amended provisions of the Second Chance Act (SCA).

A 2008 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c), part of the SCA, extended a prisoner’s eligibility

for placement in a RRC from six months to twelve months. Sacora at *1. Soon after the

amendment to the SCA, BOP officials issued a memorandum explaining the changes and

Case 2:10-cv-00904-SRB Document 20 Filed 02/01/11 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

- 2 -

how they were to be implemented. Sacora at *2. Regarding the additional eligibility for

placement in an RRC, the memorandum provided: 

While the Act makes inmates eligible for a maximum of 12 months pre-release

RRC placements, Bureau experience reflects inmates’ pre-release RRC needs

can usually be accommodated by a placement of six months or less. Should

staff determine an inmate’s pre-release RRC placement may require greater

than six months, the Warden must obtain the Regional Director’s written

concurrence before submitting the placement to the Community Corrections

Manager.

Sacora at *2-*3. The memorandum further provides that RRC placement decisions must be

made on an individual basis using the factors identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). Sacora at

*2.

The court held that the BOP policy – that six months in a RRC is sufficient in most

cases but that each inmate is eligible for 12 months and must be considered on an individual

basis – is consistent with the SCA. Sacora at4. The court noted that the policy

memorandum provides that each inmate’s individualized assessment must now be

approached with the understanding that the inmate is eligible for up to 12 months in an RRC.

Sacora at *5. It explained, however, that the BOP is “entitled to use its experience in

interpreting and administering a statute...” Id. 

Unlike the petitioners in Sacora, Petitioner here did not directly challenge the BOP

policy calling for a six month RRC placement in most cases. He indirectly challenged the

policy, however, by alleging in his reply that all the inmates were receiving the same five to

six month RRC placement regardless of their offenses. Doc. 16 at 3-4. He provided six unnotarized affidavits to support this allegation. He claimed that this demonstrates inmates are

not receiving the required individualized assessment. Under Sacora, however, a challenge

to the BOP policy to limit most inmates to six months in a RRC is foreclosed. Sacora,

therefore, provides further support for the court’s recommendation in the Report and

Recommendation to deny the petition.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

Case 2:10-cv-00904-SRB Document 20 Filed 02/01/11 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

- 3 -

That this Supplement to Report and 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. . See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. 

That the parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this

supplement within which to file specific written objections with the Court concerning both

the Report and Recommendation and the Supplement to Report and Recommendation.

Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure

to timely file objections to the Report and Recommendation and the Supplement to Report

and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation and

the Supplement to Report and Recommendation by the district court without further review.

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file

objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver

of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order of judgement entered

pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

DATED this 1st day of February, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00904-SRB Document 20 Filed 02/01/11 Page 3 of 3