Shopteese v. Jenkins, II

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 4/13/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on 2/12/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STEPHANIE D. SHOPTEESE, 24574-031,
Petitioner,

8

W. Z. JENKINS II, Warden,
Respondent.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

9
10

Case No. 17-cv-07117-SK (PR)

Petitioner, a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin, California (FCI –

12
13

Dublin) serving a sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the District of Kansas,

14

has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the

15

execution of her sentence by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Petitioner specifically challenges an

16

allegedly improper delay in her placement date in a community residential reentry center.
The petition is properly before the undersigned for initial review because petitioner has

17
18

consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
DISCUSSION

19
20

A.

Standard of Review
This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person “in

21
22

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §

23

2241(c)(3). It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why

24

the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person

25

detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243.

26

B.

27
28

Claims
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), the BOP has authority to designate the place of an inmate’s

imprisonment. Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir. 2008). And under 18 U.S.C. §

1

3624(c), it has an affirmative duty to consider placing an inmate in a community Residential

2

Reentry Center (RRC) or similar prerelease alternative toward the end of the inmate’s prison term.

3

Id. at 1184.

4

Petitioner claims that the BOP improperly delayed her placement date in an RRC in

5

violation of an existing contract with the RRC, and in violation of applicable federal law and

6

regulations. Liberally construed, the claims appear arguably cognizable under § 2241 and merit an

7

answer from respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts

8

must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally). But see Sacora v. Thomas,

9

628 F.3d 1059, 1061, 1068, 1068-69, 1070 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that policy disfavoring
placement in RRC for more than six months reasonable because Second Chance Act of 2007

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

(SCA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 17501-17555, affords BOP option to make placements in RRC for up to 12

12

months but does not require that placements be for longer than six months).
CONCLUSION

13
14

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

15

1.

The clerk shall serve (1) a copy of this order, (2) the petition and all attachments

16

thereto, and (3) a notice of assignment of prisoner case to a United States magistrate judge and

17

accompanying magistrate judge jurisdiction consent or declination to consent form (requesting

18

that respondent consent or decline to consent within 28 days of receipt of service), on respondent

19

and respondent’s attorney, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, and

20

the Attorney General of the United States in Washington, D.C. The clerk also shall serve a copy

21

of this order on petitioner.

22

2.

Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of the

23

issuance of this order, an answer responding to the allegations in the petition and showing cause

24

why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and

25

serve on petitioner a copy of all documents that are relevant to a determination of the issues

26

presented by the petition.

27
28

3.

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with

the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt of the answer.
2

1

4.

Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

2

respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner also must

3

keep the court and all parties informed of any change of address.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 12, 2018
______________________________________
SALLIE KIM
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3