MICHAEL FIORITO V. CYNTHIA ENTZEL, No. 19-55491 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 30 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL FIORITO, No. Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-55491 D.C. No. 5:17-cv-02158-JFW-KES MEMORANDUM* CYNTHIA ENTZEL, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 20, 2021** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Michael Fiorito appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), 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). Fiorito contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) violated his right to due process by designating him a violent offender and increasing his custody score, which resulted in his classification as a medium-security inmate. This contention is not cognizable in a habeas petition. This court has already determined that Fiorito’s transfer from a low-security to a medium-security prison did not subject him to greater restrictions of his liberty sufficient to invoke habeas jurisdiction. See Fiorito v. Entzel, 829 F. App’x 192 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989)). None of Fiorito’s allegations in these proceedings supports a different conclusion. Fiorito’s allegation that the BOP violated the “Accardi doctrine” fares no better. Insofar as Fiorito argues that the BOP failed to follow its program statements, “[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.” Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 2011). To the extent Fiorito alleges violations of federal law independent of the BOP’s alleged non-compliance with its program statements, his allegations are not supported by the record. We do not reach Fiorito’s assertion that the First Step Act imposes due process requirements on the BOP because he did not develop this argument. See United States v. Williamson, 439 F.3d 1125, 1138 (9th Cir. 2006). 2 19-55491 Finally, the district court did not err by denying Fiorito’s motions to strike the government’s answer and for summary judgment. AFFIRMED. 3 19-55491
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.
