Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00183/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00183-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Chen Pui
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID CHEN PUI,

Petitioner,

v.

DENNIS SMITH,

Respondent.

 /

1: 07- CV -0183 AWI DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT

[Docs. 8, 9, 10, 11]

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 12, 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 fourteen days

of the date of the Court’s order. The parties were granted ten (10) court days (plus three (3) days

for mailing) to file objections to the Findings and Recommendation. 

Neither party filed objections. Therefore, on March 22, 2007, the undersigned adopted

the Findings and Recommendation in full and judgment was entered. (Court Docs. 6, 7.) 

Case 1:07-cv-00183-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 06/14/07 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

2

On April 27, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to enforcement the judgment of March 22,

2007. On May 9, 2007, the Court directed Respondent to notify the Court within fourteen (14)

days from the date of service, whether he has complied with the order of March 22, 2007. 

Respondent filed its notice of compliance on May 9, 2007. Respondent submits a form

entitled “Institutional Referral for CCC Placement,” dated February 27, 2007, which indicates

that Petitioner was evaluated “without reference to the time constraints imposed by 28 C.F.R. §

570.20-21 or the 2002 and 2005 Community Corrections Policies.” Attachment 1, Court Doc.

10. As a result of this evaluation, it was recommended that Petitioner spend 15-30 days in an

RRC prior to his release. 

On May 17, 2007, Petitioner filed an opposition to Respondent’s notice of compliance. 

Petitioner argues that prison officials have never discussed any referral for placement and transfer

to an appropriate RRC, and the re-evaluation was conducted without his knowledge and in his

absence. Petitioner further argues that the BOP is using Program Statement 7310.04 to

circumvent this Court’s order. 

First, Petitioner cites no authority for proposition that he must be present during the

referral for placement and transfer to an RRC. Respondent states the evaluation was conducted

in compliance with the Order. There is no evidence to find otherwise. Second, 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. 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 extent that Petitioner requests an immediate transfer, it must

th

be denied. 

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

Case 1:07-cv-00183-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 06/14/07 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

3

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). 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s objection is noted and rejected, and Petitioner’s motion to

enforce the judgment of March 22, 2007, is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00183-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 06/14/07 Page 3 of 3