Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03938/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03938-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Janice Chavez
Petitioner
Schelia A. Clark
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANICE CHAVEZ,

Petitioner,

 vs.

SCHELIA A. CLARK, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-3938 WHA (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional

Institution in Dublin, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. She also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the

execution of a federal sentence only on the ground that the sentence is being executed "in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3);

United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984). The court should "award the writ

or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,

unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled

thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

///

Case 3:07-cv-03938-WHA Document 5 Filed 08/28/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

B. LEGAL CLAIM

Section 3621(b) of Title 18 of the United States Code provides that the Bureau of

Prisons may house the federal prisoners under its control in “any available penal or correctional

facility.” The BOP has, however, adopted regulations, 28 CFR § § 570.20 and 570.21, which

prohibit transfer of prisoners to a Community Correctional Center (“CCC”) until they have only

ten percent of their sentences left to serve. See Wedelstedt v. Wiley, 477 F.3d 1160, 1161 (10th

Cir. 2007). Petitioner contends that this policy is inconsistent with Section 3621(b), and thus

that the refusal of the BOP to consider her for transfer to a CCC until she has only forty-five

days of her sentence left to serve is grounds for habeas relief. This contention is sufficient to

require a response. See id. at 1162 (affirming grant of habeas writ in similar case). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 

1. Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis (document number 2 on the docket)

is GRANTED. 

2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition and all

attachments thereto upon the respondent and the respondent's attorney, the United States

Attorney for the Northern District of California. The clerk shall also send a copy of the petition

to the Attorney General of the United States in Washington, D.C. 

3. Respondent shall file with this court and serve upon the petitioner, within thirty days

of the date this order is entered, an answer responding to the allegations of the petition and

showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. The respondent shall file with

the answer a copy of all documents that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented

by the petition. 

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with

the court and serving it upon the respondent within thirty days of service of the answer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\ORDERS\HC\OSC-2241.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-03938-WHA Document 5 Filed 08/28/07 Page 2 of 2