Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00511/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00511-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Respondent
Jimmy Quan
Petitioner
D. 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

JIMMY QUAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, )

D. SMITH, Warden, )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:08-CV-00511 LJO GSA HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

ORDER GRANTING PETITION IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT 

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On May 16, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It was recommended

that Respondent be ORDERED not to reference the BOP policy promulgated in December 2002 or 

the BOP’s February 14, 2005, amendment to 28 C.F.R. § 570.21 in any future consideration of

Petitioner for RRC placement. To the extent Petitioner requested an immediate assessment or RRC

placement, the Magistrate Judge recommended the petition be DENIED. Petitioner was granted

thirty (30) days to file objections to the Findings and Recommendation. 

On June 18, 2008, Petitioner filed objections. Petitioner disagrees with the Magistrate

Case 1:08-cv-00511-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 06/23/08 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

Judge’s conclusion that he is not entitled to an immediate assessment or placement in an RRC. He

argues that Program Statement 7310.04, Community Correction Center (CCC) Utilization and

Transfer Procedure, (12-16-1998), improperly limits discretion to consider RRC placement until the

last 11-13 months before an inmate’s projected release date. Petitioner’s arguments are without

merit. Program Statement 7310.04 does not limit the BOP’s discretion like 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20,

570.21. It only requires the BOP conduct an assessment within 11 to 13 months from the date of the

projected release date, thereby assuring the inmate receives a timely assessment. The program

statement does not preclude the BOP from exercising its discretion and conducting an assessment at

any time during an inmate’s sentence. Therefore, the program statement does not run afoul of 18

U.S.C. § 3621(b). 

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 concludes that the

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation of May 16, 2008, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;

3. Respondent is ORDERED not to reference the BOP policy promulgated in December 2002

or the BOP’s February 14, 2005, amendment to 28 C.F.R. § 570.21 in any consideration of Petitioner

for RRC placement eligibility. If Respondent fails to complete such an assessment within 11 months

of Petitioner’s projected release date, Petitioner may move to reopen the case at that time.

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00511-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 06/23/08 Page 2 of 2