(HC) Sanders v. Ponce, No. 2:2015cv01619 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/29/2016 DIRECTING respondent to file an answer to the amended petition, within 60 days, regarding petitioner's claim that the classification score assigne d to him under Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 5100.8 is too low; and petitioner's traverse, if any, is due on or before 30 days from the date respondent's answer is filed. IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioner's claims concerning the processing of inmate grievances, complaints, etc., be summarily dismissed. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections to the findings and recommendations due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CURTIS DANE SANDERS, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 v. ORDER AND PONCE, et al., 15 No. 2:15-cv-1619 TLN CKD P FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondents. 16 Petitioner, a federal prisoner, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On 17 18 September 2, 2015, petitioner’s original § 2241 petition was dismissed with leave to amend. 19 Petitioner has now filed an amended petition. Generally speaking, the court must order 20 respondent to file a response to a § 2241 petition unless it appears from the petition that the 21 petitioner is not entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The court reviews petitioner’s amended 22 petition to determine if ordering respondent to file a response is warranted. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has created a 23 24 comprehensive scoring system to determine the level of custody appropriate for each particular 25 inmate. This system is set forth in BOP Program Statement 5100.8. Petitioner alleges the score 26 assigned to him is too low because he has been given incorrect scores for “program participation” 27 and “living skills.” He asks that the court order the score raised and order that petitioner be 28 ///// 1 1 transferred to a low security prison. Petitioner also asks that the court order respondents to 2 process petitioner’s complaints of staff misconduct. 3 Good cause appearing, the court will order respondent to file a response with respect to 4 petitioner’s claim regarding his classification score. As for petitioner’s claims regarding the 5 processing of complaints, claims concerning conditions of confinement generally must be brought 6 in an action for violation of civil rights. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (1991). Since 7 petitioner is a federal prisoner, an action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. 8 Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1999) would be the appropriate civil rights action. 9 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 10 1. Respondent is directed to file an answer within sixty days regarding petitioner’s claim 11 that the classification score assigned to him under Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 12 5100.8 is too low. 13 14 2. Respondent shall include with the answer any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented. 3. Petitioner’s traverse, if any, is due on or before thirty days from the date respondent’s 15 16 answer is filed. IT IS HERBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s claims concerning the processing of 17 18 inmate grievances, complaints, etc., be summarily dismissed. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 20 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 21 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 22 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 23 Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 2 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 Dated: March 29, 2016 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 sand1619.dis 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
