1 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

GREGORY JOHN ROJAS, 

 Case No. 3:15-cv-01419-SU 

 Petitioner, 

 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 v. 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

et al., 

 

 Respondents. 

 Gregory John Rojas, #19608-111 

 FCI-Sheridan 

 P.O. Box 5000 

 Sheridan, OR 97378 

 Attorney for Petitioner 

 Billy J. Williams 

 United States Attorney 

 Jared D. Hager, Assistant United States Attorney 

 1000 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600 

 Portland, OR 97204-2902 

 Attorneys for Respondent 

Case 3:15-cv-01419-SU Document 14 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 4
 2 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

SULLIVAN, Magistrate Judge. 

 Petitioner brings this habeas corpus case pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 seeking to enjoin an allegedly ongoing 

investigation into possible criminal activity in his past. For 

the reasons that follow, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

(#1) should be denied. 

DISCUSSION

 Petitioner is serving a 30-month sentence at FCI-Sheridan 

for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 841. Petitioner’s projected release date is currently 

September 1, 2016. 

 According to petitioner, Ms. Ayala, a Bureau of Prisons 

(“BOP”) employee, and the Solano County Sheriff’s Office are 

investigating whether petitioner was involved in criminal 

activity in 1996. Petitioner fears that this investigation 

might lead to formal criminal charges that preclude him from 

participating in the BOP’s Residential Drug Abuse Treatment 

Program (“RDAP”). He asks the court to: (1) enjoin Ms. Ayala 

and the Solano County Sheriff’s Office from investigating the 

“stale criminal charges”; and (2) order his immediate release 

from custody. 

 Respondents timely filed their Response to the Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus on September 22, 2015. They contend that 

Case 3:15-cv-01419-SU Document 14 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 4
 3 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

habeas corpus relief is not appropriate where petitioner: 

(1) fails to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement; 

(2) has not suffered any injury such that he lacks standing to 

maintain the current challenge; and (3) has not exhausted his 

administrative remedies. See Declaration of Jennifer Vickers, 

p. 3 (“the petitioner has never utilized the Administrative 

Remedy Program.”). Although petitioner’s supporting memorandum 

was due on or before November 30, 2015, he has not filed such a 

document with the court, otherwise attempted to refute these 

arguments, or communicated with the court in any way since 

September 1, 2015. 

 The court has nevertheless reviewed the record in this case 

and determined that petitioner is not entitled to relief. 

Specifically, petitioner’s claim that an investigation into his 

past might jeopardize his placement in RDAP in the future is 

simply too speculative to give him standing to raise such a 

challenge. See Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 

862, 868-69 (9th Cir. 2002) (a petitioner must demonstrate a 

concrete and particularized injury, not a speculative one). In 

addition, it is clear from the record that petitioner has not 

exhausted his administrative remedies. See Martinez v. Roberts, 

804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986) (it is well-settled that 

federal habeas petitioners must exhaust their administrative 

Case 3:15-cv-01419-SU Document 14 Filed 04/20/16 Page 3 of 4
 4 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

remedies). Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

should be denied. 

RECOMMENDATION 

 For the reasons identified above, the Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus (#1) should be denied, and a judgment should be 

entered dismissing this case without prejudice. 

SCHEDULING ORDER

 This Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a 

district judge. Objections, if any, are due within 14 days. If 

no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendation 

will go under advisement on that date. 

 If objections are filed, then a response is due within 14 

days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the 

response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the 

Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement. 

 DATED this 20th day of April, 2016. 

 

 _s/ Patricia Sullivan_____ 

 Patricia Sullivan 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01419-SU Document 14 Filed 04/20/16 Page 4 of 4