Joseph Buddenberg v. Swain

Filing 9

Order to Petitioner to Show Cause Why Respondents Motion to Dismiss Should Not Be Granted by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, on or before January 8, 2018, Petitioner shall file a response to Respondent's motion to dismiss, either opposing it or conceding that this action should be dismissed. (jdo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 5:17-cv-01867-JGB-KES

Date: December 7, 2017

Title: JOSEPH BRIEN BUDDENBERG v. WARDEN SWAIN
PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE KAREN E. SCOTT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jazmin Dorado
Courtroom Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFF:
None Present

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANT:
None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

Order to Petitioner to Show Cause Why
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Should
Not Be Granted

Joseph Brien Buddenberg (“Petitioner”), a prisoner in federal custody, constructively filed
a Petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Dkt. 1.) He argued that he had fewer
than 180 days remaining on his sentence1 and that Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) staff “abused their
discretion by not providing [him] with [an] ‘individualized re-entry plan’ review” and “not
attempting to place [him] in a residential re-entry center.” (Id. at 4.)
The Court ordered Respondent to file a response to the Petition (Dkt. 3), and Respondent
timely did so by filing a motion to dismiss on October 18, 2017 (Dkt. 6). Respondent argues that:
(1) this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Congress has specifically exempted BOP’s
placement decisions from judicial review; (2) this Court lacks jurisdiction because Petitioner was
not confined in the Central District of California on the date he filed the Petition; and (3) Petitioner
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Id.)
On September 25, 2017, a court filing mailed to Petitioner at his address of record in
Adelanto, CA came back undelivered. (Dkt. 5.) An inquiry on the Bureau of Prisoner’s website
and Respondent’s motion to dismiss revealed that Petitioner had been transferred to a federal
prison in Coleman, FL. (Dkt. 6 at 7.) The Court mailed a new copy of its Order Requiring
Response to Petition to Petitioner’s new address and extended his deadline to file an opposition to
1

Respondent’s motion to dismiss states that Petitioner’s current projected release date is
February 7, 2018, assuming he earns all remaining good conduct time. (Dkt. 6 at 7.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 5:17-cv-01867-JGB-KES

Date: December 7, 2017
Page 2

Respondent’s motion to dismiss to November 13, 2017. (Dkt. 8.) As of the date of this Order, the
Court has not received any response from Petitioner.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, on or before January 8, 2018, Petitioner shall file
a response to Respondent’s motion to dismiss, either opposing it or conceding that this action
should be dismissed. If Petitioner fails to timely respond to this Order, this action may be
dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Initials of Deputy Clerk JD