Rodriguez v. Winn
ORDER accepting and adopting 18 Report issued by Magistrate Judge Rateau. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge James A Soto on 6/8/2016. (See Order for details) (DPS)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
No. 4: 14-CV-2139-TUC-JAS
John T. Shartle, Warden,
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) issued by
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau (Doc. 18).
recommends denying and dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Doc. 1). The Petitioner filed an Objection to Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19)
and Respondent filed a Response (Doc. 20). The Court reviews de novo the objected-to
portions of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
In that Report, Judge Rateau
After an independent de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the Report.
Petitioner’s hearing in Bureau of Prisons (BOP) custody satisfied all requirements of due
process, and the positive test for marijuana provided “some evidence” that Petitioner
violated Code 112, subjecting himself to BOP discipline. Additionally, BOP properly
had jurisdiction over Petitioner because his custody by New York state officials was
pursuant to a writ of limited scope and duration.1 Finally, Petitioner has not established
In his Objection to Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation, Petitioner
argues that his case is distinguishable from Capozzi v. Warden USP-Lewisburg, 610
that BOP proceedings are subject to the personal jurisdiction and venue statutes that limit
federal courts’ jurisdiction; in fact, Congress gave BOP the broad mandate to provide
discipline to all people charged or convicted with offenses against the United States. 18
U.S.C. § 4042(a)(3).
For these reasons, this Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report issued by
Magistrate Judge Rateau. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is
DENIED. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
Dated this 8th day June, 2015.
Honorable James A. Soto
United States District Judge
Fed.Appx. 105 (3rd Cir. 2015), because in that case, the prisoner was in state custody
under a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, while in this case, petitioner was in state
custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. Although Petitioner has
correctly stated the facts, the distinction does not change the outcome of analysis
conducted by Magistrate Judge Rateau, because both writs are limited in time and scope,
which is the crucial determinant of whether BOP guidelines apply.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?