T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 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 R YA N B ON NE AU , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. J . E. TH O M A S, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 12- 35303 D . C. N o . 3 : 1 1 - c v - 0 0 8 0 1 - BR 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 orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon A nnaJ . B r ow n, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 16, 2013 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , IK U T A , an dW A T F O R D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F ed er al p riso n erR ya n B o n n ea u ap p ea ls p ro se fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s ju d g m e n t g r a n tin g in p a rt a n dd e n y in g in p a rt h is 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 h ab e a s p e titio n . W e h av e ju risd icti o n u n d er2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r ev iew d e n o v o a d istrict co u rt’s d e n ia l o f a2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 h ab e a s c o rp u s p e titio n , s e e Mor a-Me r azv . T hom as , 

# FI LED APR22 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 35303 2 6 0 1 F. 3 d9 3 3 , 9 3 9 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. B on neau’ s s ec t i on 22 41 pet i t i on chal l enged tw o p ri son d i sc i pl i nary pr oc e e di ngs a nd a l l e ge d tha tthe B ur e au of P r i s ons ( “ B O P ” ) vi ol a t e d hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s byr e m ovi ng hi m f r om the R e s i de nt i a l D rug A bus e T r e a tm e nt P ro g ram (“ R D A P ”). T h e d i stri ctco u rtco n cl u d edth atB o n n eau ’ s du e p ro cess r i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d i n one of the di s c i pl i na rypr oc e e di ngs a nd or de r e d the i nc i de nt r e porte xpunge d a nd the s a nc t i ons r e s ul t i ng f r om tha the a r i ng r e ve r s e d. T he d istrict co u rt fu rth erco n clu d ed th at itlack ed ju risd icti o n to re v iew B o n n ea u ’s c la im r e q u e s tin g r e in s ta te m e n t in to R D A P . O n app ea l , B on neau cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourtcoul d h ave c on si dere d hi s R D A P c l a i m i ns of

a ra s he w a s r e que s t i ng r e i ns t a t e m e nti nt o R D A P or re eval uat i on for R D A P pl ac em entas partof the re m edy f or the const i tut i on al v io la tio n th a t o c c u rr e din h is d is c ip lin a ryp r o c e e d in g . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tly det erm i ned thati tl ac ked j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the B O P ’ s i nd i vi du al i ze d d e te rm in a tio n m a d e p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 6 2 1 . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 6 2 5 ; R ee b v. T hom as , 636 F . 3d 1224, 1227- 28 ( 9th C i r . 2011) . F urthe rm or e , e ve n a s s um i ng the d is tr ic t c o u rt c o u ldh a v e o r d e r e dth e r e m e d yB o n n e au s e e k s , it d idn o t ab u s e its b r o a dd is c r e tio n in f

a s h io n in g h ab e a s r e lie f

in th is c a s e . Se e Hilto n v . B r a u n s kill , 48 1 U . S . 77 0, 77 5 (19 87 ). AF F I RME D.