Pettus v. Feather et al, No. 3:2015cv02438 - Document 14 (D. Or. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2 is denied. The court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability on the basis that petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c) (2). Signed on 7/19/2016 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (copy of order mailed to petitioner) (kms)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pettus v. Feather et al Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON CHARLES PETTUS, Case No. 3:15-cv-02438-JO Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER v. MARION FEATHER, Respondent. Charles Pettus, #18642-111 FCI-Sheridan P.O. Box 5000 Sheridan, Oregon 97378 Attorney for Petitioner Billy J. Williams United States Attorney Jared Hager Assistant United States Attorney 1000 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204-2902 Attorneys for Respondent 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com JONES, District Judge. Petitioner brings U.S.C. 2241 § decision not ("RRC"). this habeas challenging to place the him corpus Bureau in a case pursuant of Prisons' Residential For the reasons that follow, to 28 ("BOP' s") Reentry Center the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#2) is denied. BACKGROUND Petitioner pursuant to a is currently incarcerated 51-month sentence FCI-Sheridan at from the Northern District of California for being a felon in possession of a firearm in 2013. As petitioner neared the end of his sentence, considered him for placement in an RRC. BOP officials On February 29, 2016, they reviewed his record and determined that petitioner is the lead suspect Francisco in Police (#11), Att. 3. an open murder investigation Declaration Department. of by the Autumn San Norris As a result, they refused to place him in a RRC. Petitioner contends he has a protected liberty interest in RRC placement, and he seeks a court order requiring respondent Respondent asks the court to to change his housing assignment. deny relief exhaust his on the Petition because: administrative ( 1) remedies; petitioner ( 2) the failed court to lacks jurisdiction to review individualized determinations of prisoner placements such as the 2 - OPINION AND ORDER one at issue in this case; and • (3) petitioner has no liberty protected interest in RRC placement. DISCUSSION "In order to seek habeas relief under section 2241 . petitioner must first, her available 649 F.3d 899, 'as a prudential matter,' administrative 900 remedies." (9th Cir. 2010) exhaust his or Singh (per . a v. curiam). Napolitano, Requiring a petitioner to exhaust his administrative remedies aids "judicial review by allowing the appropriate record in an expert forum." (9th Cir. 1983). Use development Ruviwat v. Smith, of available of a factual 701 F.2d 844, 845 administrative remedies conserves "the court's time because of the possibility that the relief applied for may be granted at the administrative level." Moreover, Id. opportunity to it allows correct errors Employ. Relations Bd., administrative occurring Id; administrative proceedings." Agric. "the in agency an course of the United Farm Workers v. Arizona 669 F.2d 1249, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982). "Exhaustion where the of remedies administrative are inadequate, remedies is not inefficacious, or required futile, where pursuit of them would irreparably injure the plaintiff, or where the administrative United Farm Workers, 669 proceedings F.2d at 3 - OPINION AND ORDER 1253 themselves are void." (citation omitted); see also Fraley v. (9th Cir. United States Bureau of Prisons, 1993) (exhaustion waived 1 F.3d 924, where request 925 for administrative remedy initially denied by Community Corrections Office would based upon almost policy) . official certainly Courts B.O.P. have should been not, policy denied however, and further based upon relax the appeal the same exhaustion requirement where it "would encourage the deliberate bypass of the administrative scheme." Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 1 0 0 0 ( 9th Cir . 2 0 0 4 ) . The BOP resolution; provides ( 2) four concedes Counsel, D.C. that 28 he but argues been futile. of review: did (4) C.F.R. not informal (1) formal complaint with the Warden; the Regional Director; and Washington, levels ( 3) appeal to appeal to the General Counsel in §§ file 542.13-542.15. an appeal Petitioner with the General that pursuit of such an appeal would have He does not, however, such an appeal would have been futile, specifically describe why nor does he identify the existence of any BOP policy that precludes him from challenging the BOP's Counsel. is, RRC in his appeal to the General Moreover, petitioner does not assert that a BOP policy itself, mistakenly determination unlawful. concluded investigation in San Instead, that he Francisco. 4 - OPINION AND ORDER he is claims a This that the suspect is the in BOP has murder kind of individualized process is determination intended to that the administrative Petitioner's address. mere appeals assertion that it is futile for him to continue his administrative appeal based upon his lack of success during the preliminary stages of the administrative review process is insufficient to excuse him from the render exhaustion all but requirement. the first To level of conclude the otherwise would administrative appeal process meaningless. Even if petitioner were remedies as to this claim, corpus Federal relief. individualized 1227-28 (9th Cir. of discretionary §§ BOP courts 2011) may not pertaining 3624. § exhaust his administrative he would not be entitled to habeas determinations pursuant to 18 U.S.C. to Reeb (no habeas decisions v. review to Thomas, the RRC BOP's placement 636 F.3d 1224, jurisdiction in the context made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Moreover, even assuming the court had jurisdiction 3621-24). to address the BOP's discretionary decision on petitioner's RRC placement, while such prisoners, it simply Inmates do security 215, not have 461 U.S. 224 (1976); is another a classification Wakinekona, U.S. is highly placement form protected or 238, place 244-45 United 5 - OPINION AND ORDER of liberty of custodial interest incarceration. (1983); States desired v. Meachum Laughlin, v. among housing. in their Olim Fano, v. 427 933 F.2d 786, 789 (9th Cir. see also 28 U.S.C. 1991); § 3624 (c) (1) (the BOP "may" (not "must") place an inmate in a RRC during the last year of his sentence). Accordingly, relief on the Petition is denied. CONCLUSION For the reasons identified above, Habeas Corpus Certificate ( #2) is denied. of Appealability on the Petition for Writ of The court declines the basis that to issue a petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c) (2). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this _-. l,ASJ- day of July, 2016. . Jones States District Judge 6 - OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
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.
