This disposit ion is not appropriate f or publication and is not pre cedent except as * provided by

9th Cir. R. 36-3. The pa

nel unanimously

conclude s that this case is suitable for decision without ** oral a rgument. SeeFe d. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)
. The Honorable Edw ard R. Kor man, Senior United States District Judge f or the *** Easter n District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T
RUSS EL L C LI NE, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t,
v. LI N D A SA N D ERS, Warden, USP-L ompoc R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 56113 D
. C. N o . 1 0
- c v - 8 9 9 8
- V A P- V BK
ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia V i r gi ni a A
. P hi l l i ps , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry 11, 2013 * * P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B e f o r e : O ’S C A N N L A I N a n d W . F L E T C H E R , C ir c u it J u d g e s , a n d K O R M A N , S eni or D i stri ctJudg e. *** 

# FI LED JAN 30 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

R usse l l C l i ne, w ho atthe t i m e of the fi l i ng of thi s pet i t i on for a w ri t of habeas
c o rp u s p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 4 1 w a s s e r v in g a f e d e r a l p r is o n s e n te n c e , ap p e a ls f r om a j udgm e ntof

t h e d i st ri c tc our tdi s m i s s i ng hi s pe t i t i on on the gr ound tha the fa i l ed t o exh austhi s a dm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es . O n thi s app ea l , he ar gu es th at h e w as d e n i e d th e b e n e f

i t s o f th e Re s i d e n t i a l D ru g A bus e P r ogr a m ( “ RD A P” ) a tFCC L om po c i n re t al i at i on for t he exer ci se of hi s con st i tut i on al ri gh t s i n “ chal l engi ng w hat he bel i eved t o b e i napp ropri at e a nd i ll eg al B O P ac t i on s a tthe R D A P i n L om po c. ” T he succ es sf

ul com pl et i on of the prog ra m w ou l d have re nd er ed hi m el i gi bl e for a oney e a rr e d u c tio n o f

h is s e n te n c e u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 6 2 1 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B )
. T h e m a g is tr a te ju d g e , w h o s e r e c o m m e n d a tio n w a s a d o p te d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, di sc usse d the rul e r equi ri ng exhaust i on and o bserved t hatpet i t i on erh ad no tye t exhaust ed hi s a dm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es . A l tho ug h the m agi stra t e j ud ge ob se rved that p e titio n e r“a r g u e s th a t th is C o u r t s h o u ld w a iv e t h e e x h a u s tio n r e q u ir e m e n t . . . [ be c a us e ] e xha us t i on w oul d be f ut i l e an d P e t i t i one rf

e a r s r e t a l i a t i on, ” he di d not di sc uss that ar gu m ent ; i nst ea d, w i tho utany f urther di sc ussi on , he hel d that“ P et i t i on er ha s f a i l e d t o e xha us thi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s ; a s s uc h, the P e t i t i on m us tbe d is m is s e d .” W h i le it is c o m m o n g r o u n d th a t p e titio n e rw a s r e q u ir e d to e x h a u s t h is
a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s , w e r e c e nt l y he l d tha t“ e xha us t i on c a n be w a i ve d i f pur s ui ng3

tho se [a dm i ni stra t i ve] re m edi es w ou l d b e f ut i l e, ” W ard v. C ha vez , 678 F
. 3d 1042, 10 45 (9th C i r. 20 12 ) ( al t er at i on i n ori gi nal ) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). U nd er the s e c i r c um s t a nc e s , be c a us e the que s t i on of f ut i l i ty s houl d be f

i r s ta ddr e s s e d by the d istrict co u rt in o rd erto en ab le u s to ev alu ate t h e p ro p riety o f th e d istrict co u rt’s d e c is io n , w e r e m a n d th e c a s e to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o rth a t p u rp o s e . W e a d d th e s e b r ie f

w o r d s w i th r e s p e c t to th e is s u e o f w h e th e rth e ap p e a l is
m o o t b e c a u s e p e titio n e r h a s c o m p le te d h is s e n te n c e a n d is n o lo n g e rin c u s to d y . W e h a v e h e l d t h a t, n o tw ith s ta n d in g th e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , a p e titio n in a c a s e s u c h a s th is i s notm oo tbecause, i f s ucce ss ful i n o bt ai ni ng w hatw ou l d be i n ess ence a dec l ar at ory j ud gm ent , the pet i t i on erm ay then see k t o h av e h is three -y ea r t erm of supervi se d
r e le a s e r e d u c e d
. Serra to v. C la rk , 48 6 F .3 d 56 0, 56 5 & n. 2 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). N ever t he l e s s , s uc h a r e me dy i s a va i l abl e s ol e l y i n the di s c r e t i on of the di s tr i c tcourt onl y “ i f i ti s s a t i s f

i e d tha ts uc h a c t i on i s w a rr a nt e d by the c onduc tof the de f e nda nt
r e le a s e d a n d th e in te r e s t o f ju s tic e .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 ( e ) ( 1 )
.

V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.