Rodriguez v. Copenhaver, No. 14-16399 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner appealed the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons' denial of a discretionary nunc pro tunc designation of a state prison for service of his federal sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3621(b). The court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction to consider petitioner's claims that the BOP violated the Constitution, exceeded its statutory authority, or acted contrary to established federal law. Therefore, the court held that the district court erred by dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court also held that the BOP acted contrary to 18 U.S.C. 3621(b)(4), which directs the BOP, when designating a prisoner to a facility in which to serve his sentence, to consider “any statement by the court that imposed the sentence.” In this case, it is undisputed that the BOP relied on a letter from a judge who not only was not the sentencing judge, but who had been formally recused from the case due to an actual conflict – namely, his connection to the victim of the crime. The court concluded that the BOP acted contrary to section 3621(b)(4) and due process by relying on the letter. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to grant the petition with directions for the BOP to reconsider the nunc pro tunc designation request.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of a federal prisoner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ denial of a discretionary nunc pro tunc designation of a state prison for service of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), and remanded. The panel held that because the district court had jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez’s claims that the BOP violated the Constitution, exceeded its statutory authority, or acted contrary to established federal law, the district court erred by dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The panel held that the BOP acted contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4) and due process, when it relied on a letter from a judge who was not the sentencing judge, and who had been formally recused from the case due to an actual conflict – namely, his connection to the victim of the crime. The panel reversed and remanded for the district court to grant the habeas petition with directions to the BOP to promptly reconsider the prisoner’s request for a nunc pro tunc designation, without considering the letter from the recused judge. Judge Tashima concurred in part and dissented in part. He agreed that the BOP committed legal error under § 3621(b)(4) in treating and relying on the letter of a judge RODRIGUEZ V. COPENHAVER 3 who was not the sentencing judge, but he dissented from the majority’s discussion of and “holding” that the BOP violated the prisoner’s due process rights and statutory rights under the recusal statutes.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.