Tensley v. Outlaw
ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 7/13/10. (bkp)
Tensley v. Outlaw
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS E A S T E R N DIVISION T IM O T H Y TENSLEY, R e g . # 10203-003 V S. CASE NO. 2:10CV00014 BD PETITIONER
T .C . OUTLAW, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex, F o r r e st City, Arkansas ORDER
R ESPON D EN T
O n July 2, 2010, this Court entered an Order granting in part Petitioner Timothy T e n s le y's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus (docket entry #10). In the O rd e r, the Court ordered Respondent to show cause why he should not immediately tra n s f e r Petitioner to a Residential Re-entry Center ("RRC") for the remainder of his p riso n term. The Court noted that Respondent could show cause by providing evidence o f a previously completed Second Chance Act assessment (#10, p. 7). Respondent has n o w provided evidence that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") complied with the Second C h a n c e Act when considering Petitioner's request for RRC placement (#12). When determining RRC placement, the BOP is required only to consider the re q u e s t "in good faith." Fults v. Sanders, 442 F.3d 1088, 1089 (8th Cir. 2006). The BOP re ta in s broad discretion under the Second Chance Act, and courts review the BOP's d e c is io n s for abuse of its "substantial discretion." Fegans v. United States, 506 F.3d 1 1 0 1 , 1102-1105 (8th Cir. 2007). Under the Second Chance Act, Petitioner is entitled to a good faith, individualized assessment of his RRC placement needs. The evidence
provided by Respondent shows that Petitioner received the required assessment. Accordingly, Petitioner Timothy Tensley's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#2) is D IS M IS S E D with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of July, 2010.
___________________________________ U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?