TI LU V. BRYAN BIRKHOLZ, No. 22-15555 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 23 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TI LU, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-15555 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00114-LEK-RT v. MEMORANDUM* BRYAN BIRKHOLZ, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2022** Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Ti Lu appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Rodriguez v. Copenhaver, 823 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Lu contends that he meets the criteria for home confinement under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, but that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has not considered his eligibility in accordance with a BOP policy memorandum. To the extent Lu challenges the BOP’s individualized determination concerning his placement, the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider that claim. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b); Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1228 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court also properly dismissed as not cognizable Lu’s claim regarding the BOP’s alleged noncompliance with its policy memorandum. See Reeb, 636 F.3d at 1227 (“A habeas claim cannot be sustained based solely upon the BOP’s purported violation of its own program statement because noncompliance with a BOP program statement is not a violation of federal law.”). AFFIRMED. 2 22-15555

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.