Danny Sass v. Jeff Thoma, No. 09-35830 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 08 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS DANNY RYAN SASS, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 09-35830 DC No. 08 cv-0300 MA v. MEMORANDUM * JEFF E. THOMAS, Warden Federal Prison Camp Sheridan, Oregon, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Malcolm F. Marsh, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 4, 2010 Portland, Oregon Before: TASHIMA, PAEZ, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Danny Ryan Sass appeals the district court s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1. Sass contends that the Bureau of Prisons ( BOP ) policies interpreting the Second Chance Act ( SCA ) are substantively and procedurally invalid. The SCA, however, had not yet become effective, and the BOP s memoranda and regulations that are at issue on appeal had not yet been implemented when the BOP denied Sass only request for a transfer to a Residential Re-Entry Center ( RRC ) that is documented in the record. Accordingly, Sass claims challenging the BOP s SCA-based policies are not ripe for review. See Bova v. City of Medford, 564 F.3d 1093, 1096 (9th Cir. 2009). 2. Sass also argues that the BOP, in denying his particular request for transfer to an RRC, violated 18 U.S.C. § 3621 by failing to consider the factors enumerated in that statute. We conclude that the record does not support this contention. We further note that, in any event, the BOP will evaluate any future RRC applications by Sass under its SCA-based policies, which we recently approved in the related case of Sacora v. Thomas, No. 10-35553, slip op. 19415 (9th Cir. Dec. 6, 2010). AFFIRMED. -2-
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.
