Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01705/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01705-1/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

---

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY C. MATTOS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

DENNIS SMITH, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-01705 AWI LJO HC

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION FOR STAY 

[Doc. #6]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On December 21, 2006, this Court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Respondent

was ordered to consider the appropriateness of transferring Petitioner to a residential re-entry center

(“RRC”) in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(b), not excluding any other factors

deemed appropriate by the BOP, without reference to the BOP policy promulgated in December

2002 and without reference to the BOP’s February 14, 2005, amendment to 28 C.F.R. § 570.21.

Respondent was directed to make this determination within 14 days of the date of the December 18,

2006, Order (hereinafter “Order”).

On January 18, 2007, Respondent filed a motion for stay of the Order. On January 22, 2007,

Petitioner filed an opposition to Respondent’s motion to stay. 

DISCUSSION

Pending before the Court is Respondent’s motion to stay the Order. Respondent asks that the

Case 1:06-cv-01705-LJO-GSA Document 10 Filed 02/12/07 Page 1 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

Order be stayed until September 19, 2007, to give Respondent an opportunity to appeal the Order to

the Ninth Circuit. Respondent argues that “Program Statement 7310.04 requires the BOP to begin

release planning at an inmate’s first team meeting.” Respondent’s Motion at 2. Pursuant to Program

Statement 7310.04 § 8, “A final and specific release plan, including a decision as to [RRC] referral,

is normally established at a team meeting no later than 11 to 13 months before an inmate’s projected

release date.” Id. In this case, Petitioner is not scheduled for release until, at the earliest,

September 19, 2009. Id. Petitioner opposes Respondent’s motion for stay and requests immediate

enforcement of the judgment.

Respondent’s arguments for a stay are persuasive. Petitioner will not be prejudiced by a short

stay, because Petitioner is not automatically entitled to a redesignation to an RRC. The BOP retains

the discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) to transfer Petitioner to an RRC, and the Order granting the

petition only directed Respondent to consider whether it would be appropriate to transfer Petitioner

to an RRC in light of the five factors set forth in § 3621(b). Given Petitioner will not be released

until 2009 at the earliest, a stay until September 19, 2007, is not unreasonable.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s motion for stay of the Order is GRANTED; 

2. Respondent is ORDERED to comply with the Order prior to September 19, 2007; 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01705-LJO-GSA Document 10 Filed 02/12/07 Page 2 of 2