Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00306/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00306-1/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

1

 Specifically, the Court found that Petitioner’s claim should be more properly raised in a motion pursuant

to § 2255. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERMAN LOPEZ-SALINAS,

Petitioner,

v.

R.D. ANDREWS, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 05-00306 AWI SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

[Doc. 5]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition on March 3, 2005. On May 20, 2005, the Court issued 

Findings and Recommendations recommending that the petition be dismissed as the claims were

not cognizable under § 2241.1 Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations

on June 7, 2005. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the

Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. In his objections,

Petitioner contends that because he is challenging the Bureau of Prisons policy regarding the

disparate treatment of aliens, the petition is cognizable pursuant to § 2241. Petitioner is

Case 1:05-cv-00306-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 08/15/05 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

2

mistaken. In McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1183-84, 1185-86 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied,

120 S.Ct. 814 (2000), the Ninth Circuit unequivocally held that the denial of such benefits to

deportable aliens pursuant to immigration detainers does not violate the Constitution as this

exclusion is "rationally related to the BOP's legitimate interest in preventing prisoners from

fleeing detainers while participating in community treatment programs." Id. at 1186 (holding that

the Bureau of Prisons did not violate the defendants' statutory and constitutional rights when it

denied their requests for an 18 U.S.C. §3621(e)(2)(B) sentence reduction on the basis of an

Immigration and Naturalization Service detainer lodged against them). Accordingly, Petitioner's

claim of an illegal sentence based on disparate treatment fails. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued May 20, 2005, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment, terminating this action in

its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00306-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 08/15/05 Page 2 of 2