Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02925/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02925-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dianne Aragon
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

DIANNE ARAGON,

Petitioner,

 v.

SCHELIA A. CLARK, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-2925 CW

ORDER DENYING

PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner Dianne Aragon brings this action seeking a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In opposing the petition,

Respondent Schelia A. Clark argues that it should be dismissed

because Petitioner has not exhausted her administrative remedies. 

Petitioner has submitted a traverse responding to this argument. 

The matter was taken under submission on the papers. Having

considered all of the papers submitted by the parties, the Court

denies the petition.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is currently serving a term of fifteen months of

imprisonment on a conviction for conspiracy to distribute a mixture

containing methamphetamine and cocaine. She is incarcerated at the

Federal Prison Camp in Dublin, California, where Respondent is

Case 4:07-cv-02925-CW Document 8 Filed 12/14/07 Page 1 of 5
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

1CCCs were formerly known as halfway houses. Respondent uses

the term “residential reentry center” to refer to the same type of

institutional setting.

2Because exhaustion is required under this authority, the

Court need not consider Respondent’s argument that the Prison

Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, also requires exhaustion

of administrative remedies in this case.

2

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 December 28, 2007, 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. However, Respondent has filed a declaration with supporting

documentation showing that Petitioner has not filed a request for

an administrative remedy at any level on any issue.

DISCUSSION

The Ninth Circuit requires, “as a prudential matter, that

habeas petitioners exhaust available 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

Case 4:07-cv-02925-CW Document 8 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 5
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 3

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.) (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

Case 4:07-cv-02925-CW Document 8 Filed 12/14/07 Page 3 of 5
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 4

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.); Rojero v. Clark, 2007 WL

3026415 (N.D. Cal.); Espinoza v. Clark, 2007 WL 2990157 (N.D.

Cal.); Cristobal v. Clark, 2007 WL 2746742 (N.D. Cal.); Zavala v.

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

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

The Court agrees with the reasoning of these decisions, and

concludes that waiver of the exhaustion requirement is not

warranted in this case.

CONCLUSION

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s

petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice to her

filing a new one after exhausting the BOP’s administrative appeals

process. The clerk shall close the file.

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 12/14/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-02925-CW Document 8 Filed 12/14/07 Page 4 of 5
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 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIANNE ARAGON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SCHELIA A. CLARK et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-02925 CW 

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 December 14, 2007, 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.

Dennis Matthew Wong

U.S. Attorney’s Office

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Dianne Aragon #27331-051

FPC-Dublin

5675 8th St. Camp Park

Dublin, CA 94568

Dated: December 14, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-02925-CW Document 8 Filed 12/14/07 Page 5 of 5