Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00305/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00305-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Hood Kovack
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

JAMES HOOD KOVACK, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

DENNIS SMITH, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00305 LJO NEW (DLB) 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 April 20, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be GRANTED and Respondent be 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. The Magistrate Judge

recommended Respondent be DIRECTED to make this determination within 60 days of the date of

the Court’s order. The parties were granted thirty (30) days to file objections to the Findings and

Recommendation. 

Case 1:07-cv-00305-LJO-LJO Document 7 Filed 06/01/07 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

On May 9, 2007, Respondent filed objections. Respondent challenges the Findings and

Recommendation on two points. First, Respondent disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis

with respect to 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20, 570.21. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge and

concludes that the Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis.

Therefore, the Court will grant the petition on this point.

Respondent also opposes to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that an assessment of

Petitioner’s suitability for placement in an RRC be conducted within 60 days of this order.

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

Utilization and Transfer Procedure, (12-16-1998), does not require an assessment be conducted until

11-13 months from the date of Petitioner’s projected release date. Respondent’s argument is

persuasive. There is no authority of which this Court has been alerted to which would require the

BOP to conduct an RRC eligibility review or immediately transfer an inmate to an RRC upon an

inmate’s demand. Rather, the BOP retains the discretion to transfer the inmate at any time during his

or her incarceration, and only has the duty to consider an inmate for transfer in the last six months of

the sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c); Elwood v. Jeter, 386 F.3d 842, 847 (8 Cir.2004.). Thus, to the th

extent that Petitioner requests an immediate transfer or eligibility determination, the petition will be

dismissed without prejudice to renewing within 11 months of his projected release date.

Even though Petitioner does not challenge Program Statement 7310.04 in this petition, the

potential claim would be meritless. 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. 

However, in light of Respondent’s objections, the Court will not adopt the recommendation as to

Case 1:07-cv-00305-LJO-LJO Document 7 Filed 06/01/07 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

when an assessment shall be completed.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation of April 20, 2007, is ADOPTED IN PART;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED in part and DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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 1, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00305-LJO-LJO Document 7 Filed 06/01/07 Page 3 of 3