Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01531/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01531-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher C. Close
Petitioner
Dennis Smith
Respondent

Document Text:

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

CHRISTOPHER C. CLOSE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

DENNIS SMITH, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-01531 AWI LJO HC

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION FOR STAY 

[Doc. #9]

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME

[Doc. #8]

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT

[Doc. #10]

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 20, 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 20,

Case 1:06-cv-01531-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 02/12/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

2006, Order (hereinafter “Order”).

On December 28, 2006, Respondent filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for

reconsideration. On January 12, 2007, Respondent filed a motion for stay of the Order. 

Petitioner responded to Respondent’s motions with a motion to enforce the judgment filed on

January 19, 2007, and an opposition to Respondent’s motion to stay filed on January 22, 2007. 

DISCUSSION

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

Order be stayed until March 6, 2010, 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, March 6,

2012. Id. 

Petitioner opposes Respondent’s motion for stay and moves for an immediate enforcement of

the judgment. Petitioner argues he could easily be redesignated back to a Federal Prison Camp if the

Ninth Circuit overturns the Court’s Order. He argues Respondent is attempting to delay, thereby

perverting the administration of justice. He further argues that Respondent contradicts himself in his

arguments with respect to the appropriate time for a release evaluation. Petitioner also states he is

asking for immediate redesignation to an RRC.

Respondent’s arguments for a stay are persuasive, but the Court does not agree with the

length of the stay requested, to wit, over three years. Considering the large quantity of similar cases

being filed, the Court’s caseload would be significantly burdened with these stagnant cases if they

were stayed for such long periods of time. However, 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

Case 1:06-cv-01531-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 02/12/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

until 2012 at the earliest, a stay of six months 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 July 31, 2007; 

3. Respondent’s motion for extension of time is GRANTED nunc pro tunc to January 12,

2007; and

4. Petitioner’s motion to enforce the judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01531-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 02/12/07 Page 3 of 3