Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00128/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00128-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Craig Apker
Respondent
James Dirk Roberts
Petitioner

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Dirk Roberts,

Petitioner,

v. 

Craig Apker, 

Respondent. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 10-00128-TUC-RCC (JM)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner James Dirk Roberts filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.

1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 626(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule – Civil 72.1(b). As discussed below,

the Magistrate Judge finds that Petitioner’s claims are moot and, even if considered on the

merits, do not warrant relief, and therefore recommends that the petition and be denied and

that this case be dismissed. 

I. Background

Petitioner, who at the time of filing was incarcerated at USP Tucson, was sentenced

to 63 month imprisonment after pleading guilty to charges of possession of child

pornography and indecent exposure. Petition, p. 1. He alleges in the petition that the Bureau

of Prisons (“BOP”) violated the Second Chance Act of 2007 (“SCA”), particularly 18 U.S.C.

§§ 3621 and 3624(c), by failing to evaluate his halfway house needs on an individualized

basis. He contends that he was entitled to year-long placement in a Residential Re-entry

Center (“RRC”) rather than the 150 to 180 days actually allowed. On May 3, 2011,

Case 4:10-cv-00128-RCC Document 28 Filed 07/27/11 Page 1 of 4
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

Petitioner was released from BOP custody pursuant to Good Conduct Time release. Motion

to Dismiss, Ex. A. 

II. Discussion

A. The Petition is moot.

For relief on his claim, Petitioner sought immediate review of his release to a RRC

and placement in such a facility for the maximum 12 month period. As this claim effectively

seeks early release from BOP custody, and since Petitioner has already been released from

custody, the Petition has become moot, and habeas relief is not warranted. See Picron–Peron

v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir.1991) (habeas claim is moot when court no longer has

power to grant requested relief); see also United States v. Arnette, 329 Fed. Appx. 714, 715

(9th Cir.2009) (where federal habeas petitioner has been released from federal custody, and

can obtain no effective relief for his claims, and there remain no collateral consequences

resulting from his claims, case has become moot).

B. Petitioner’s claim is meritless.

In a recent Report and Recommendation adopted by the District Court, Magistrate

Judge Guerin addressed a claim identical in all pertinent respects to the instant case and, in

recommending denial of the petition, reasoned as follows:

The SCA does not mandate a RCC placement of 12-

months or prohibit a placement of less than 12-months. See 18

U.S.C. § 3624(c); Roman v. Berkebile, 2008 WL 4559825 at *2

n. 2 (N.D.Tex. Oct. 6, 2008) (prisoners may receive a maximum

of 12 months under the Second Chance Act, but there is no

presumptive minimum). Although Petitioner may

understandably believe that a longer RRC placement would

benefit him, a petitioner “is not entitled to a writ of habeas

corpus simply because he thinks the Bureau of Prisons

misjudged his situation and made a bad decision about when he

should be transferred to an RRC.” Segovia-Reyna v. Cruz, 2009

WL 279482 (D.Minn.2009). The SCA only requires that the

BOP Consider an inmate for RRC placement; it does not

mandate that the inmate actually get such placement..

Wedelstedt v. Wiley, 477 F.3d 1160, 1168 (10th Cir. 2007). In

sum, an inmate is entitled to a good faith and proper exercise of

discretion by the BOP. Rodriguez v. Smith, 2007 WL 628663

(E.D.Cal. Feb. 28, 2007), aff’d 541 F.3d 1880, 1887 (9th Cir.

Case 4:10-cv-00128-RCC Document 28 Filed 07/27/11 Page 2 of 4
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

3

2008). [The Petitioner] has failed to demonstrate that the BOP

failed to properly exercise its discretion in this matter.

Bruce v. Apker, 2009 WL 2509170 (D.Ariz. Aug. 17, 2009). As was the situation in Judge

Guerin’s case, the Petitioner here has not established that the BOP failed to properly exercise

its discretion. In fact, Petitioner here does not allege that BOP has not considered longer

placement, but alleges that BOP’s process was insufficiently individualized even though at

the time of filing his hearing had yet to occur. Moreover, Petitioner goes so far as to admit

that he cannot prove that the BOP acted inconsistent with the law. Petition, Attachment, p.

7. For these reasons, Petitioner has not shown that BOP has violated his rights under the

SCA. 

III. Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District

Court, after its independent review, GRANT Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 26),

DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1),

and DENY Petitioner’s pending motions (Docs. 20, 21 and 22). 

This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 

However, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy

of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District

Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to

the objections. If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV

10-0128-TUC-RCC. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination

of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo

Case 4:10-cv-00128-RCC Document 28 Filed 07/27/11 Page 3 of 4
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

4

consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003) (en banc).

DATED this 27th day of July, 2011.

Case 4:10-cv-00128-RCC Document 28 Filed 07/27/11 Page 4 of 4