Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04528/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04528-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Copenhaven
Respondent
Maura Pena-Munoz
Petitioner

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 1

 CCCs were formerly known as halfway houses. "Residential reentry center" is also another

name for the same type of institutional setting.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURA PENA-MUNOZ,

Petitioner,

 v.

PAUL COPENHAVEN, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-04528 SBA (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

BACKGROUND

Petitioner brings this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. She has

paid the full filing fee. 

Petitioner is currently serving a term of twelve months of imprisonment on a conviction for

bringing in illegal aliens without presentation. She is incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp in

Dublin, California, where Respondent is warden. She filed this petition challenging a Bureau of

Prisons (BOP) regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 570.21, that denies inmates placement in a community

corrections center (CCC)1 until the last ten percent or six months of their sentence, whichever is

shorter. Petitioner claims that this policy is contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), which governs the

placement of inmates in BOP custody.

Pursuant to the challenged regulation, Petitioner has been scheduled for transfer to a CCC on

June 19, 2008, the beginning of the last ten percent of her sentence. She seeks an order requiring

Respondent to consider her appropriateness for transfer to a CCC in light of the factors set forth in

18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), notwithstanding the time limits imposed by 28 C.F.R. § 570.21. She claims to

be "in the process of exhausting her administrative remedies through the BOP's administrative

appeals process." Pet. at 3. 

DISCUSSION

The Ninth Circuit requires, "as a prudential matter, that habeas petitioners exhaust available

Case 4:07-cv-04528-SBA Document 2 Filed 05/09/08 Page 1 of 4
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

 Because exhaustion is required under this authority, the Court need not consider that the Prison

Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, also requires exhaustion of administrative remedies in this

case.

2

judicial and administrative remedies before seeking relief under § 2241." Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239

F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001).2

 The requirement may be waived in limited circumstances,

including when pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile. See Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d

994, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2004) (listing circumstances when waiver of the exhaustion requirement may

be appropriate).

Petitioner argues that pursuing administrative remedies would be futile here because the BOP

promulgated the challenged regulation under a categorical exercise of its discretion, and the

regulation does not permit exceptions for individual inmates. However, Petitioner's unsupported

contention that administrative remedies would be futile does not persuade the Court to waive the

exhaustion requirement. The Court notes that all four of the circuit courts that have considered the

validity of the BOP's policy have found it invalid. Wedelstedt v. Wiley, 477 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir.

2007); Levine v. Apker, 455 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006); Fults v. Sanders, 442 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir. 2006);

Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2005). Several district courts in the Ninth

Circuit have also found the policy contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). See Whistler v. Wrigley, 2007

WL 1655787, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 7, 2007) (listing cases).

Recent actions of the BOP suggest that it may be reconsidering its policy in response to the

numerous cases rejecting its regulation as contrary to statute. For instance, in Whistler, the BOP

informed the court that it had evaluated the petitioner's request for administrative relief without

reference to the time constraints imposed by 28 C.F.R. § 570.21 and had transferred him to a CCC,

leading the court to dismiss the petition as moot. Id. at *6-*7. Consequently, it is not clear that

Petitioner's pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile; there is a possibility that BOP

officials will provide her the relief she seeks. Multiple courts in this district have recognized this

possibility, and have required other habeas petitioners challenging the BOP regulation to exhaust

their administrative remedies. See, e.g., Carrillo v. Clark, 2007 WL 3026674 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17,

2007); Rojero v. Clark, 2007 WL 3026415 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2007); Espinoza v. Clark, 2007 WL

2990157 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2007); Cristobal v. Clark, 2007 WL 2746742 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20,

Case 4:07-cv-04528-SBA Document 2 Filed 05/09/08 Page 2 of 4
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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.07\Pena-Munoz4528.dismiss(unexh).frm 3

2007); Zavala v. Clark, 2007 WL 2705216 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2007); Reyna v. Copenhager, 2007

WL 2504983 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2007); Felty v. Clark, 2007 WL 2438337 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22,

2007). The Court agrees with the reasoning of these decisions, and concludes that waiver of the

exhaustion requirement is not warranted in this case. Therefore, Petitioner's federal petition is

unexhausted and must be DISMISSED. 

Accordingly, the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 is DISMISSED

without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new one after exhausting the BOP's administrative appeals

process. Should she do so, she is advised to file her new federal habeas corpus petition as soon as

possible after exhausting. The Court makes no ruling at this time on the issue of the timeliness of

any future federal petition. 

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment, close the file, and terminate any pending

motions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 5/8/08 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:07-cv-04528-SBA Document 2 Filed 05/09/08 Page 3 of 4
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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.07\Pena-Munoz4528.dismiss(unexh).frm 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURA PENA-MUNOZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PAUL COPENHAVEN et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-04528 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on May 9, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies)

in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in

the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's

office.

Maura Pena-Munoz 02726298

Federal Prison Camp - Dublin

5675 8th Street - Camp Parks

Dublin, CA 94568

Dated: May 9, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-04528-SBA Document 2 Filed 05/09/08 Page 4 of 4