Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00211/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00211-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennis Smith
Respondent
Clyde G. Sutton
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLYDE G. SUTTON,

Petitioner,

v.

DENNIS SMITH,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 07-00211 LJO DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

ORDER GRANTING PETITION IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On May 3, 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 60 days of

the date of the Court’s order. The parties were granted thirty (30) days to file objections to the

Findings and Recommendation. On May 9, 2007, Respondent filed objections. On May 21,

2007, Petitioner filed objections. 

Respondent challenges the Findings and Recommendation on two points. First,

Case 1:07-cv-00211-LJO-DLB Document 8 Filed 06/04/07 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

Respondent disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis with respect to 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20,

570.21. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge and concludes that the Findings and

Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. Therefore, the Court will grant

the petition on this point.

Respondent also opposes to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that an assessment

of Petitioner’s suitability for placement in an RRC be conducted within 90 days of this order.

Respondent argues that 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. Respondent’s argument is

persuasive. 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.). th

Thus, to the extent that Petitioner requests an immediate transfer or eligibility determination, the

petition will be dismissed without prejudice to renewing within 11 months of his projected

release date.

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

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). 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that

the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper

analysis. However, in light of Respondent’s objections, the Court will not adopt the

Case 1:07-cv-00211-LJO-DLB Document 8 Filed 06/04/07 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

recommendation as to when an assessment shall be completed.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation of May 3, 2007, is ADOPTED IN PART;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED in part and DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE in part; 

3. Respondent is ORDERED not to reference the BOP policy promulgated in December

2002 or the BOP’s February 14, 2005, amendment to 28 C.F.R. § 570.21 in any consideration of

Petitioner for RRC placement eligibility. If Respondent fails to complete such an assessment

within 11 months of Petitioner’s projected release date, Petitioner may move to reopen the case

at that time.

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00211-LJO-DLB Document 8 Filed 06/04/07 Page 3 of 3