Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01820/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01820-4/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

DAN PIZARRO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

DENNIS SMITH, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-01820 OWW NEW (DLB) HC

ORDER TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND

CLOSE CASE

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On January 22, 2007, 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” or “CCC”) 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 six months of the order.

On May 24, 2007, Respondent filed a verification of compliance and request for entry of

judgment. Respondent has submitted a copy of the form “Institutional Referral for CCC Placement”

which shows Petitioner was considered for transfer to an RRC. According to the form, it was

determined on May 16, 2007, that Petitioner would spend between 150-180 days in an RRC. 

Case 1:06-cv-01820-OWW -LJO Document 14 Filed 07/12/07 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

On June 6, 2007, Petitioner filed an opposition to Respondent’s notice. Petitioner complained

an evaluation was not completed by Respondent in compliance with the Court’s order, pointing to 

the language “too soon to evaluate.” 

On June 14, 2007, the undersigned issued an order directing Respondent to re-evaluate

Petitioner because it appeared from the language that the evaluation had not been conducted in

compliance with the Court’s order. On July 3, 2007, Respondent filed a response to the Court’s order

clarifying the meaning of the language “too soon to evaluate.” According to Respondent, Petitioner

was in fact re-evaluated on May 16, 2007, and it was determined he would spend 150-180 days in an

RRC placement accordingly. However, since Petitioner’s anticipated release date is not until

June 26, 2012, it is too soon at this point in determine the actual RRC Petitioner will be placed.

Respondent has submitted the declaration of Judith Dreher, the case management coordinator for the

Bureau of Prisons and the individual who placed the subject language on the verification of

compliance. According to Dreher, a threat assessment is usually conducted 11 to 13 months prior to

an inmate’s projected release date. The threat assessment determines where an inmate will ultimately

be placed. When Dreher conducted the Institutional Referral for CCC Placement for Petitioner, she

did not perform the threat assessment because Petitioner’s projected release date is five years away.

Accordingly, she states she placed the language “too soon to evaluate” in the corresponding box. In

light of this explanation, it is the Court’s finding that Respondent has indeed conducted an

evaluation of Petitioner for RRC placement in compliance with the Court’s January 22, 2007, order

granting the petition.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Clerk of Court ENTER judgment and close the

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01820-OWW -LJO Document 14 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 2