Case Name: Keoni PAYTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey THOMAS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-27
Citations: 467 F. App'x 662
Docket Number: No. 11-35183
Parties: Keoni PAYTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey THOMAS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 662–663

Head Matter:
Keoni PAYTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey THOMAS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-35183.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 27, 2012.
Stephen R. Sady, FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Ronald K. Silver, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Keoni Payton appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Payton contends that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") exceeded its authority by modifying his Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program ("RDAP") treatment plan to require that Payton repeat three months of treatment. The district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BOP's individualized determination made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621. See 18 U.S.C. § 3625; Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 2011). Additionally, the record does not support Payton's contention that the BOP acted unlawfully.
Payton further contends that he was retaliated against by being expelled from RDAP. This claim is not properly before the court. See Park v. California, 202 F.3d 1146, 1155 (9th Cir.2000) (refusing to consider claims not properly raised in the habeas petition before the district court).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.