Rodriguez v. Winn

Filing 21

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Alexis Rodriguez,

No. 4: 14-CV-2139-TUC-JAS
Petitioner,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

John T. Shartle, Warden,

13

Respondent.

14

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) issued by

15

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau (Doc. 18).

16

recommends denying and dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

17

(Doc. 1). The Petitioner filed an Objection to Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19)

18

and Respondent filed a Response (Doc. 20). The Court reviews de novo the objected-to

19

portions of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.

20

72(b).

In that Report, Judge Rateau

21

After an independent de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the Report.

22

Petitioner’s hearing in Bureau of Prisons (BOP) custody satisfied all requirements of due

23

process, and the positive test for marijuana provided “some evidence” that Petitioner

24

violated Code 112, subjecting himself to BOP discipline. Additionally, BOP properly

25

had jurisdiction over Petitioner because his custody by New York state officials was

26

pursuant to a writ of limited scope and duration.1 Finally, Petitioner has not established

27
28

1

In his Objection to Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation, Petitioner
argues that his case is distinguishable from Capozzi v. Warden USP-Lewisburg, 610

1

that BOP proceedings are subject to the personal jurisdiction and venue statutes that limit

2

federal courts’ jurisdiction; in fact, Congress gave BOP the broad mandate to provide

3

discipline to all people charged or convicted with offenses against the United States. 18

4

U.S.C. § 4042(a)(3).

5

For these reasons, this Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report issued by

6

Magistrate Judge Rateau. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is

7

DENIED. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

8

Dated this 8th day June, 2015.

9
10
11
12
13

Honorable James A. Soto
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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.
-2-