Wu v. Copenhaver et al

Filing 12

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/12/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6
7

No. C 09-4802 CW (PR)

LE HUA WU,
Petitioner,

RANDY TEWS, Warden,

8

Respondent.
/

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

ORDER DENYING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS;
DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY

v.

Petitioner Le Hua Wu brings this action seeking a writ of

11

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

12

Respondent Randy Tews1 argues, among other things, that it should

13

be denied because Petitioner has not exhausted her administrative

14

remedies.

15

The matter was taken under submission on the papers.

16

considered all of the papers submitted by the parties, the Court

17

denies the petition.

18
19

In opposing the petition,

Petitioner has submitted a response to this argument.
Having

BACKGROUND
Petitioner is serving a ninety-seven month sentence for

20

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute

21

controlled substances, conspiracy to launder money and possession

22

with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

23

the satellite Federal Prison Camp at Camp Parks (SCP) in Dublin,

24

California, where Respondent is warden.

She is incarcerated at

Petitioner's projected

25
26
1

27
28

In accordance with Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254
Proceedings and Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court substitutes Randy Tews as Respondent because
he is now Petitioner's custodian.

1
2

release date is December 1, 2012.
Petitioner claims the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has failed to

3

apply its regulations properly to designate her placement in a

4

Residential Re-entry Center (RRC) followed by a term of home

5

confinement.

6

regulations require that the BOP consider placing inmates prior to

7

their release in an RRC for twelve months of community confinement

8

followed by six months of home confinement, BOP policy provides

9

otherwise.

Specifically, she argues that, even though federal

Consequently, she asks the Court to order the BOP to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

exercise its discretion to place her in an RRC for twelve months

11

followed by six months of home confinement.

12

has not exhausted her administrative remedies through the BOP's

13

administrative appeals process concerning this issue, but maintains

14

that BOP staff have told inmates at SCP that all requests

15

concerning RRC placement will be denied categorically.

She concedes that she

16

DISCUSSION

17

The Ninth Circuit requires, “as a prudential matter, that

18

habeas petitioners exhaust available judicial and administrative

19

remedies before seeking relief under § 2241.”

20

INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001).2

21

waived in limited circumstances, including when pursuit of

22

administrative remedies would be futile.

23

370 F.3d 994, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2004) (listing circumstances when

24

waiver of exhaustion requirement may be appropriate).

Castro-Cortez v.

The requirement may be

See Laing v. Ashcroft,

25
26
27
28

2

Because exhaustion is required under this authority, the
Court need not consider Respondent’s argument that the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, also requires exhaustion
of administrative remedies in this case.
2

1

The BOP has established procedures by which inmates can seek

2

review of “an issue relating to any aspect” of an inmate’s

3

confinement.

4

inmates in programs operated by the BOP.

5

must attempt informal resolution of the issue with prison staff.

6

28 C.F.R. § 542.13(a).

7

issue informally, the inmate must submit a written administrative

8

appeal to the warden.

9

satisfied with the warden’s response at the institutional level may

28 C.F.R. § 542.10.

The procedures apply to all
Id.

The inmate first

If the inmate is unable to resolve the

28 C.F.R. § 542.14(d).

An inmate who is not

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

then submit an appeal to the Regional Director.

11

§ 542.15(a).

12

Regional Director’s response may submit an appeal to the General

13

Counsel of the BOP.

14

28 C.F.R.

Finally, an inmate who is not satisfied with the

Id.

Here, the parties' undisputed evidence shows that Petitioner

15

has not exhausted the her administrative remedies.

16

in her petition, which was filed on October 19, 2009, Petitioner

17

states that she is in the process of exhausting her administrative

18

remedies but she provides no additional facts to support her

19

assertion.

20

in support of the Answer a declaration from Bobbi Butler, a

21

Correctional Program Specialist employed by the BOP, who attests

22

that Petitioner has not yet been considered for RRC placement, and

23

that under BOP policy Petitioner will not be considered for such

24

placement until seventeen to nineteen months before her projected

25

release date.

26

Additionally, Butler states that she has reviewed the

27

administrative remedy logs maintained on the BOP computerized

Pet. at 3 ¶ 5.

Specifically,

By contrast, Respondent has submitted

Dec. Bobbi Butler Supp. Answer (Butler Dec.) ¶ 4.

28
3

1

record-keeping database called SENTRY, and based on her review she

2

has found no administrative remedy requests filed by Petitioner on

3

this matter.

4

Butler Dec. ¶¶ 1-3, 7.

In support of her traverse to the Answer, Petitioner presents

5

evidence that on June 23, 2010, after Respondent's Answer was

6

filed, Petitioner submitted to the Administrative Remedy

7

Coordinator at FCI Dublin a request that she be approved for RRC

8

placement twelve months prior to her release date.

9

Response, Ex. "Request for Administrative Remedy" dated June 23,

Pet'r's

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

2010.

11

rejected on June 24, 2010, for the reason that she did not first

12

attempt informal resolution in accordance with BOP administrative

13

remedy procedures.

14

Administrative Remedy" dated June 24, 2010.

15

expressly informs Petitioner that she may resubmit her appeal in

16

proper form within fifteen days of the date of the rejection

17

notice.

18

shows she resubmitted her administrative request or otherwise

19

pursued her claim through the administrative remedy process.

20

Petitioner also presents evidence that her request was

Id.

Pet'r's Response, Ex. "Rejection Notice The rejection notice

Petitioner does not contend or present evidence that

Rather, Petitioner argues that pursuing administrative

21

remedies would be futile because BOP staff have stated publicly at

22

meetings with SCP inmates that it would be a waste of inmates' time

23

to pursue administrative remedies regarding RRC decisions.

24

Respondent, however, submits persuasive evidence that, even if BOP

25

staff did tell Petitioner and other inmates that administrative

26

requests for relief concerning RRC decisions would be denied

27

categorically, such a statement is contrary to established BOP

28
4

1

policy and cannot be relied upon by Petitioner to avoid exhaustion

2

by assuming her request for RRC placement would be denied by the

3

BOP.

4

statements relevant to the BOP's consideration of inmates for RRC

5

placement.

6

implementation of the Second Chance Act of 2007.

7

In particular, Respondent has submitted two BOP policy

Both statements were issued in response to

The first statement, issued on April 14, 2008, concerns the

8

consideration of inmates for pre-release RRC placement during their

9

last twelve months of incarceration and explains that

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

individualized placement decisions are required:
The Act requires that pre-release RRC placement decisions
be made on an individual basis in every inmate’s case,
according to new criteria in the Act, as well as the
criteria in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3624(c)(6)(amended). As a result, the Bureau’s categorical
timeframe limitations on pre-release community confinement,
found at 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20 and 570.21, are no longer
applicable, and must no longer be followed.

15
Butler Dec., Ex. 1 at 2 ¶ I(B) (emphasis in original).
16
Similarly, the second statement, issued on November 14, 2008,
17
concerns the consideration of inmates for pre-release RRC placement
18
when more than twelve months remain from their projected release
19
date and explains that individualized consideration must be given
20
to each inmate's request for RRC placement:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Inmates are legally eligible to be placed in an RRC at
any time during their prison sentence. Federal Courts
have made clear that RRCs are penal or correctional
facilities within the meaning of the applicable statutes.
Staff cannot, therefore, automatically deny an inmate's
request for transfer to a[n] RRC. Rather, inmate
requests for RRC placement must receive individualized
consideration. In other words, staff cannot say that an
inmate, whatever the circumstances, is automatically
ineligible for transfer to a[n] RRC. Rather, staff must
first review the inmate’s request on its individual
merits, in accordance with policy, and as explained in
this guidance.

28
5

1

Butler Dec., Ex. 2 at 1-2 (emphasis in original).

2

Petitioner also argues that the exhaustion of administrative

3

remedies would be futile because the Deputy Director of the BOP,

4

Audrey Gill, is married to Warden Paul Copenhaver, who was warden

5

at SCP when Petitioner filed the instant petition.

6

is without merit because it is purely speculative and unsupported

7

by any evidence.

8

SCP.

9

This argument

Additionally, Copenhaver no longer is warden at

Finally, Petitioner claims that the exhaustion of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

administrative remedies would be futile because by the time her

11

assessment for RRC placement takes place seventeen to nineteen

12

months before her projected release date, she will not be able to

13

complete the administrative remedy process in time to receive

14

twelve months of RRC placement.

15

presented an argument that is purely speculative and without

16

evidentiary support.

17

Again, however, Petitioner has

In sum, the Court finds that the undisputed evidence presented

18

by the parties in this matter shows that Petitioner has not yet

19

been considered for RRC placement and, consequently, she has not

20

pursued administrative relief for having been denied such

21

placement.

22

exhaustion of the administrative remedy process would not be futile

23

because BOP policy requires the individualized consideration of

24

each inmate's request for RRC placement and Petitioner has not

25

presented evidence that, should she be denied such placement, she

26

will not receive unbiased review of her request for administrative

27

relief or that she will not have time to complete the

Additionally, the Court finds that Petitioner's

28
6

1
2
3

administrative remedy process before her projected release date.
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be
DENIED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.3

4
5

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas

6

corpus proceeding without first obtaining a certificate of

7

appealability (COA).

8

22(b).

9

entered on a procedural question antecedent to the merits.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P.

Section 2253(c)(1) applies to an appeal of a final order
See

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000).

11

"Determining whether a COA should issue where the petition was

12

dismissed on procedural grounds has two components, one directed at

13

the underlying constitutional claims and one directed at the

14

district court's procedural holding."

15

district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds

16

without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a

17

COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of

18

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid

19

claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of

20

reason would find it debatable whether the district court was

21

correct in its procedural ruling."

22

Id. at 484-85.

"When the

Id. at 484.

Here, jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether

23

the Court was correct in its procedural ruling.

24

will not issue.

25

Appeals.

Accordingly, a COA

Petitioner may seek a COA from the Court of

26
27
28

3

Because the Court has denied the petition for failure to
exhaust, the Court does not reach Respondent's other arguments
raised in opposition to the petition.
7

1
2

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the petition for

3

a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice to Petitioner filing a

4

new one after exhausting the BOP’s administrative appeals process.

5

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 9/12/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
LE HA WU,

Case Number: CV09-04802 CW

4
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

5
v.
6
PAUL COPENHAVER et al,
7
Defendant.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California.
That on September 12, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said
envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located
in the Clerk's office.

13
14
15
16
17
18

Le Ha Wu 27718-112
Satellite Prison Camp
5675 8th St., Camp Parks
Dublin, CA 94568
Dated: September 12, 2011
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9