Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00190/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00190-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Rodriguez
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

JOSE RODRIGUEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

DENNIS SMITH, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-CV-00190 LJO NEW (DLB) HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION 

[Doc. #6]

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION FOR STAY 

[Doc. #7] 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On February 28, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 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 14 days of the date of

the Court’s order.

Case 1:07-cv-00190-LJO -GSA Document 9 Filed 04/12/07 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

The parties were granted thirty (30) days to file objections to the Findings and

Recommendation. Petitioner did not file objections. However, on March 26, 2007, Respondent filed

objections. Respondent disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and opposes granting the

petition. In addition, Respondent requests a stay should the Court adopt the Findings and

Recommendation and grant the petition. 

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 and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. 

With respect to Respondent’s request for stay, Respondent asks that the Order be stayed for

one year to give Respondent an opportunity to appeal the Order to the Ninth Circuit. Respondent

argues that a stay will not prejudice Petitioner because his projected release date is November 11,

2013. Respondent argues that regardless of the validity of the regulation at issue, Petitioner will not

be eligible for release until at least September of 2012. 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.” 

Respondent’s arguments for a stay are persuasive. Given Petitioner will not be released until 2012 at

the earliest under Program Statement 7310.04 § 8, a stay of one year is not unreasonable.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation of February 28, 2007, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Respondent’s motion for stay of the Order is GRANTED; 

3. Respondent is 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 is ordered to make this determination on or before April 10,

Case 1:07-cv-00190-LJO -GSA Document 9 Filed 04/12/07 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

2008. 

4. Respondent is ORDERED to notify the Court within thirty (30) days after the

determination has been made.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00190-LJO -GSA Document 9 Filed 04/12/07 Page 3 of 3