Cornett v. Boyle, No. 4:2016cv01751 - Document 6 (S.D. Tex. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing with prejudice 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, vacating 3 Order to Answer (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cornett v. Boyle Doc. 6 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED July 01, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION DEBORAH CORNETT, BOP #22499-078, § § § § § § § § § § § § Petitioner, v. MARNE BOYLE, Warden, Federal Prison Camp, Bryan, Texas. Respondent. David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-1751 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Deborah Cornett (BOP #22499-078) is a federal prisoner incarcerated in the United States Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") at the Federal Prison Camp in Bryan, Texas. Cornett has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. (Docket the Entry sentence. No. 1), challenging § 2241 ("Petition") administration of her After reviewing all of the pleadings and the applicable law, the court concludes that this case must be dismissed for the reasons explained below. I . On February 17, States District sentenced to 41 2015, Court Cornett was convicted in the United for months' Background the Eastern imprisonment. District See of United Texas and States v. Dockets.Justia.com Cornett, No. 6:14-cr-30-01 (E.D. Tex.). With credit for good conduct, Cornett's projected release date is April 8, 2018. 1 Cornett does not conviction. Instead, challenge the validity of her underlying she has filed a boilerplate pleading which asserts that she is entitled to placement in a Residential Reentry Center ("RRC") for the final 12 months of her sentence pursuant to the Second Chance Act 2008) . 2 of 2007, The court concludes, Pub. L. however, No. 110-199 (April 9, that the Petition must be dismissed for reasons below. II. A. Discussion Exhaustion of Remedies is Required It is evident that Cornett did not attempt to present her claim for relief in the BOP's three-tiered administrative remedy program before filing this suit. 3 (2016). seeking See 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10- 542.19 The Fifth Circuit has determined that a federal prisoner relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 "must first exhaust administrative remedies through the Bureau of Prisons." Thompson, 11 F.3d 47, 49 (5th Cir. 1993) Gabor, 905 F.2d 76, 78 n.2 (5th Cir. his Rourke v. (citing United States v. 1990) (citations omitted). Exceptions to the exhaustion requirement are appropriate only where 1 Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 1. 2 Id. at 2, 17-18. 3 Id. at 9-17. -2- "'the available administrative remedies either are unavailable or wholly inappropriate to the relief sought, or where the attempt to exhaust such remedies would itself be a patently futile course of action."' Fuller v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994) omitted). (quotation The petitioner bears the burden of showing the futility of exhaustion. Id. Cornett Cornett does not meet that burden. contends that exhaustion would be futile because former BOP Director Harley Lappin "has taken a strong position on the issue [of allowing prisoners more than six months in an RRC] and has thus far been unwilling to reconsider. " 4 However, the comments attributed to former Director Lappin were made in 2008, and are remote in time. 5 information showing The boilerplate Petition contains no what position, if any, current administration has taken on the subject of RRC placement. Cornett cites several cases in support of her argument, them involve the Second Chance Act. 6 BOP Although none of Considering that she is not projected for release until April 8, 2018, there is more than ample time for Cornett to exhaust the administrative remedy process before she becomes eligible for placement in an RRC. Under these circumstances, Cornett has not established that it would be futile for her to try. 4 Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 11. 5 ld. at 14. 6 Id. at 11. -3- B. The Petition Lacks Merit Even if Cornett had exhausted her administrative before bringing this lawsuit, the petition must be remedies dismissed because it fails to state a valid claim for habeas corpus relief. The Second Chance Act amended 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) to increase the possible term of placement in an RRC from six months to a period of no more than 12 months before a prisoner's projected release date. The amendment also requires the BOP to assess prisoners for placement on an individual basis consistent with five factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). Those factors are: (1) the resources of the facility contemplated; (2) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (3) the history and characteristics of the prisoner; (4) any statement sentence- by the court that imposed the (A) concerning the purposes for which the sentence to imprisonment was determined to be warranted; or (B) recommending a type of penal correctional facility as appropriate; and (5) any pertinent policy Sentencing Commission .... 18 u.s.c. § 3621 (b); statement see also 28 C.F.R. issued 57.22 or by the (dictating that inmates will be considered for "pre-release community confinement" in a manner consistent with 18 U.S.C. -4- § 3621(b)). A prisoner's placement in any particular facility is a matter solely within the BOP's discretionary authority. See Moore v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 473 F.2d 1375, 1376 (5th Cir. 1973); see also Stewart v. Daniels, Sept. 30, Civil No. 2014) which the no 2014 WL 4949884, *1 (E.D. Tex. ("The duration of RRC placement is a matter to [Bureau of Prisons] (citation omitted). have 1:13-184, retains discretionary authority.") It is also well established that prisoners constitutional right to be assigned to a particular institution, facility, or rehabilitative program. See, e.g., Olim v. Wakinekona, 103 S. Ct. 1741, 1745 (1983); S. Ct. 2532, 2538-40 (1976); U.S. § 78, 88 n.9 (1976). Meachum v. Fano, 96 Moody v. Daggett, 97 S. Ct. 274, 429 Nothing in the Second Chance Act or 3621(b) automatically entitles a prisoner to placement in an RRC. See Creager v. Chapman, No. 4:09-713, 2010 WL 1062610, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2010) (citing various cases). Cornett does not otherwise allege that the BOP has failed or refused to evaluate her for placement in an RRC or that the BOP performed an improper assessment her in case. As cognizable claim for review. a result, the Petition raises no 7 7 0ther courts in this district have consistently rejected an identical boilerplate Petition for lack of merit. See Barrientos v. Boyle, Civil No. H-16-1117 (S.D. Tex. April 27, 2016); Love v. Boyle, Civil No. H-16-1118 (S.D. Tex. April 27, 2016); Jackson v. Boyle, Civil No. H-16-1119 (S.D. Tex. April 26, 2016); Garza v. Boyle, Civil No. H-16-1120 (S.D. Tex. April 26, 2016); see also Brooks v. Chandler, No. 4:14-875, 2014 WL 5786954 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2014) (rejecting a boilerplate petition seeking relief under the (continued ... ) -5- III. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Deborah Cornett (Docket Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. 2. The Order directing the government to answer (Docket Entry No. 3) is VACATED. The Clerk will provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 1st 2016. LAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 ( • • • continued) Second Chance Act) . -6-
]]>
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.
