United States District Court, D. Oregon
OPINION AND ORDER
Michafel H.Simon United States District Judge
Charles Fourstar P.O. Box 252 Wolf Point, MT 59201
Petitioner, Pro Se Billy J. Williams United States
Attorney Austin Rice-Stitt, Assistant United States Attorney
10 0 0 SW Third Avenue, Suite 60 0 Portland, OR 97204-2902
Attorneys for Respondent SIMON, District Judge.
brings this habeas corpus case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 in which he appears to challenge the execution of his
sentence, the conditions of his confinement, and various
prior criminal proceedings. For the reasons that follow, the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#2) is denied.
Petitioner was on supervised release from his conviction from
Aggravated Sexual Abuse, he violated the terms of his
release. As a result, on October 18, 2018, the District of
Montana revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to
ten months confinement to be followed by 3 9 months of
supervised release. The Bureau of Prisons ("BOP")
established Petitioner's projected release date as June
30, 2019, and it appears that the BOP released him at that
the revocation of his supervised release, Petitioner filed
this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus case on February 7,
2019 alleging that the BOP violated his rights under the
First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments as
well as the 18 68 Fort Laramie Treaty and Indian Civil Rights
Act when it: (1) erred in computing his sentence; and (2) did
not provide him with his desired amount of home confinement,
time in a Residential Reentry Center ("RRC"), and
gratuity. He also appears to claim that he is actually
innocent of his underlying criminal conduct such that the
BOP's refusal to extend his time in RRC placement due to
an inaccurate criminal history are unlawful.
asks the Court to deny relief because: (1) most of
Petitioner's claims amount to conclusory allegations
without factual support; (2) his contention that he is
entitled to extended RRC placement does not state a
cognizable habeas corpus claim; (3) even if the RRC claim
were cognizable in habeas, the Court lacks jurisdiction to
grant the relief requested; and (4) Petitioner failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies, leaving his claims
ineligible for habeas corpus review.
appears that Petitioner's principal claim is that his
Warden illegally refused to provide him with the maximum
amount of RRC time available. Based upon Petitioner's
June 3 0 release, his claim pertaining to extended RRC
placement is moot. Biodiversity Legal Foundation v.
Badgley, 309 F.3d 1166, 1173 (9th Cir. 2002)
("an actual controversy must exist at all stages of the
this were not the case, Petitioner would not be entitled to
habeas relief as to his RRC claim because federal courts lack
jurisdiction to review the BOP's individualized
determinations pertaining to RRC placement, Reeb v.
Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 2011) (no
habeas jurisdiction in the context of BOP discretionary
decisions made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621-24);
Mohsen v. Graher, 583 Fed.Appx. 841, 842
(9th Cir. July 29, 2014) (no RRC jurisdiction
pursuant to Reeb) . Moreover, RRC placement is
simply another form of custodial housing, and prisoners do
not have a protected liberty interest in their security
classification or place of incarceration. Olim v.
Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-45 (1983); Meachum v.
Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976); United States v.
Laughlin, 933 F.2d 786, 789 (9th Cir. 1991);
see also 28 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1) (the BOP
"may" (not "must") place an inmate in a
RRC during the last year of his sentence).
also claims to be actually innocent of multiple state and
federal convictions and supervised release revocations. A
§ 2241 petition is typically used to challenge only the
execution of a federal sentence, but it can also be utilized
in limited cases under the "escape hatch" of §
2255 when a petitioner: (1) makes a claim of actual
innocence; and (2) has not had an "unobstructed
procedural shot" at presenting that claim. Ivy v.
Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir, 2003).
case, Petitioner argues that he is actually innocent of a
variety of prior criminal behavior, thus the BOP's
refusal to provide him with maximum RRC placement is unlawful
because he has a flawed criminal history. He maintains that
at some point in the future he "will produce new
reliable evidence and [an] expert witness after his tribal
court proceedings showing the state and U.S. lacked probable
cause and accuser(s) lacked credibility but suppressed."
Supplemental Memorandum (#12), p. 11. Petitioner's
assertion that he will be proven innocent in a future
proceeding based upon lack of probable cause and accuser
credibility does not constitute a viable claim of actual
innocence. Even if it did, Petitioner's underlying claim
is that he is entitled to additional RRC placement, an issue
that is not cognizable even if it were not moot.
extent Petitioner seeks to challenge the BOP's
calculation of his federal sentence, he has not exhausted his
administrative remedies as to this (or any other)
issue.Declaration of Jennifer Vickers (#10),
Requiring a petitioner to exhaust his administrative remedies
is important because it aids "judicial review by
allowing the appropriate development of a factual record in
an expert forum." Ruviwat v. Smith, 701 F.2d
844, 845 (9th Cir. 1983). Use of available administrative
remedies conserves "the court's time because of the
possibility that the relief applied for may be granted at the
administrative level." Jd. Where ...