Alani v. Copenhaven

Filing 66

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 60 . Petitioner's First Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 18 ) is denied. It is ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Sum mary Judgment is denied as moot. It is further ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Strike (Doc. 51 ) is denied and Petitioner's Motion for Waiver of Form Requirements (Doc. 58 ) is denied. It is further ORDERED the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this file and enter judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 9/4/15. (See attached PDF for complete information.) (KAH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Martin Sanchez-Alaniz,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-14-00324-TUC-RCC

Craig Apker,

13

Respondent.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Macdonald’s Report and

16

Recommendation (R & R) (Doc. 60). For the reasons stated below, this Court accepts and

17

adopts Magistrate Judge Macdonald’s R & R and denies Martin Sanchez-Alaniz’s1, First

18

Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, denies as moot

19

Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment; denies Petitioner’s Motion to Strike; and

20

denies Petitioner’s Motion for Waiver of Form Requirements.

21

I.

Background

22

The factual and procedural background in this case is thoroughly detailed in

23

Magistrate Judge Macdonald’s R & R (Doc. 60). This Court fully incorporates by

24

reference the Procedural and Factual Background sections of the R & R into this Order.

25

II.

Discussion

26
1

27
28

As Judge Macdonald notes, the Court docket spells Petitioner’s name as “Martin
Sanchez Alanis” however, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) list Petitioner as
“Martin Sanchez-Alaniz.”
See BOP Inmate Locator, available at
http://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited August 26, 2015). For consistency with
BOP, the Court adopts the latter spelling.

1

Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a

2

de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28

3

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). As an initial matter,

4

Respondents note in their reply to Petitioner’s Objections that Petitioner’s objections to

5

the R & R are untimely by two days (Doc. 62). Additionally, Petitioner’s reply to

6

Respondent’s response also appears to be untimely (Doc. 65). Nevertheless, this Court

7

has reviewed the full record and finds no substantial error, clear or otherwise, in Judge

8

Macdonald’s dismissal of the Petition.

9

In his Objection to the R & R, Sanchez-Alaniz argues that the Bureau of Prisons

10

cannot forfeit more than 54 “non-vested good time credits” in a 12 month period (Doc. 61

11

at 2). However, as Judge Macdonald notes, Petitioner has not pointed to any rules,

12

regulations or other authority stating that forfeiting 54 days per 12 month period is a

13

statutory maximum (Doc. 60 at 24-27). Petitioner also argues that his due process

14

protections required under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974), were violated

15

because Petitioner did not receive an explanation as to why he lost more than 54 days in a

16

12 month period. However, Judge Macdonald correctly notes that Petitioner received all

17

of the due process requirements under Wolff because Petitioner received advanced written

18

notice of the charges, had the opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence, had the

19

opportunity to have a staff representative, received a statement of the evidence prison

20

officials relied upon, and received the reasons for the disciplinary actions (Doc. 60 at 27).

21

Petitioner’s reply to Respondent’s response simply reiterates his objections. Because

22

Petitioner’s arguments are without merit and do not change the outcome, his Writ of

23

Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody is denied.

24
25
26
27
28

Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as moot because it is without
merit and the motion is identical to Petitioner’s reply.
Petitioner’s Motion to Strike is also denied. This Court finds Petitioner’s
arguments that BOP falsified records to be without merit.
Petitioner’s Motion to Waive Form Requirements is also denied. The Court adopts

-2-

1

the R & R finding that Petitioner has been able to adequately address his claims

2

throughout this litigation (Doc. 60 at 29).

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Macdonald’s Report and

5

Recommendation (Doc. 60) is accepted and adopted as the findings of fact and

6

conclusions of law by this Court.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s First Amended Petition Under 28

8

U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 18) is

9

denied.

10
11
12
13
14
15

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment is
denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 51) is
denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Waiver of Form
Requirements (Doc. 58) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this file

17

and enter judgment.

18

Dated this 4th day of September, 2015.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-