Cunningham v. Copenhaver et al

Filing 10

ORDER 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 09-4950 CW (PR)

CORINA CUNNINGHAM,
Petitioner,

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

v.
RANDY TEWS, Warden,

8

Respondent.
/

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

Petitioner Corina Cunningham brings this action seeking a writ

11

of 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

provided with the opportunity to do so.

16

arguments raised in the petition and the answer thereto, the Court

17

denies the petition.

18
19

In opposing the petition,

Petitioner has not filed a traverse, although she was
Having considered the

BACKGROUND
Petitioner is serving a seventy-two month sentence for

20

conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent

21

to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine.

22

incarcerated at the satellite Federal Prison Camp at Camp Parks

23

(SCP) in Dublin, California, where Respondent is warden.

24

projected release date is July 30, 2013.

She is

Her

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

In the instant petition, Petitioner claims the Bureau of

2

Prisons (BOP) has failed to apply its regulations properly to

3

designate her placement in a Residential Re-entry Center (RRC).

4

Specifically, she argues that, even though federal regulations

5

require that the BOP consider inmates for twelve months of

6

community confinement in an RRC prior to release, BOP policy

7

provides otherwise.

8

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

9

months prior to six months of home confinement.

Consequently, she asks the Court to order the

She concedes that

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

she has not exhausted her administrative remedies through the BOP's

11

administrative appeals process concerning this issue, but maintains

12

that BOP staff have told inmates at SCP that all requests

13

concerning RRC placement will be denied categorically.

14

DISCUSSION

15

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

16

habeas petitioners exhaust available judicial and administrative

17

remedies before seeking relief under § 2241.”

18

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

19

waived in limited circumstances, including when pursuit of

20

administrative remedies would be futile.

21

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

22

waiver of exhaustion requirement may be appropriate).

23
24

Castro-Cortez v.

The requirement may be

See Laing v. Ashcroft,

The BOP has established procedures by which inmates can seek
review of “an issue relating to any aspect” of an inmate’s

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

confinement.

2

inmates in programs operated by the BOP.

3

must attempt informal resolution of the issue with prison staff.

4

28 C.F.R. § 542.13(a).

5

issue informally, the inmate must submit a written administrative

6

appeal to the warden.

7

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

8

then submit an appeal to the Regional Director.

9

§ 542.15(a).

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

28 C.F.R.

Finally, an inmate who is not satisfied with the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

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

11

Counsel of the BOP.

12

Id.

Petitioner argues in her petition that pursuing administrative

13

remedies would be futile because BOP staff have stated publicly at

14

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

15

to pursue administrative remedies regarding RRC decisions.

16

reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s unsupported contention that

17

administrative remedies would be futile does not persuade the Court

18

to waive the exhaustion requirement herein.

19

For the

As an initial matter, although Petitioner states in her

20

petition that she is in the process of exhausting her

21

administrative remedies (Pet. at 3 ¶ 5) she provides no additional

22

facts or evidence to support her assertion.

23

has submitted a declaration from Bobbi Butler, a Correctional

24

Program Specialist employed by the BOP, who attests that

25

Petitioner, who filed the instant petition approximately three and

26

one-half years before her projected release date, has not been

27

considered yet for RRC placement and under BOP policy she will not

28
3

Respondent, however,

1

be considered for such placement until seventeen to nineteen months

2

before her projected release date.

3

(Butler Dec.) ¶ 4.

4

reviewed the administrative remedy logs maintained on the BOP

5

computerized record-keeping database called SENTRY, and based on

6

her review she has found no administrative remedy requests filed by

7

Petitioner on this matter.

8
9

Dec. Bobbi Butler Supp. Answer

Additionally, Butler states that she has

Butler Dec. ¶¶ 1-3, 7.

Further, Respondent submits persuasive evidence that, even if
BOP staff did tell Petitioner and other inmates that administrative

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

requests for relief concerning RRC decisions would be denied

11

categorically, such a statement is contrary to established BOP

12

policy and cannot be relied upon by Petitioner to avoid exhaustion

13

by assuming the BOP will deny her request for RRC placement.

14

particular, Respondent has submitted two BOP policy statements

15

relevant to the BOP's consideration of inmates for RRC placement.

16

Both statements were issued in response to implementation of the

17

Second Chance Act of 2007.

18

In

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

19

consideration of inmates for pre-release RRC placement during their

20

last twelve months of incarceration and explains that

21

individualized placement decisions are required:

22
23
24
25

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.

26
Butler Dec., Ex. 1 at 2 ¶ I(B) (emphasis in original).
27
Similarly, the second statement, issued on November 14, 2008,
28
4

1

concerns the consideration of inmates for pre-release RRC placement

2

when more than twelve months remain from their projected release

3

date and explains that individualized consideration must be given

4

to each inmate's request for RRC placement:

5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

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.
Butler Dec., Ex. 2 at 1-2 (emphasis in original).
The Court finds that the undisputed evidence presented by the

14

parties in this matter shows that Petitioner has not yet been

15

considered for RRC placement, BOP policy requires the

16

individualized consideration of each inmate's request for such

17

placement and Petitioner has not pursued any administrative

18

remedies concerning her RRC placement.

19

Court concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to waiver of the

20

exhaustion requirement.

21

habeas corpus will be DENIED for failure to exhaust administrative

22

remedies.3

23
24
25

Based on this evidence, the

Accordingly, the petition for a writ of

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas
corpus proceeding without first obtaining a certificate 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.
5

1

appealability (COA).

2

22(b).

3

entered on a procedural question antecedent to the merits.

4

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

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

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

5

"Determining whether a COA should issue where the petition was

6

dismissed on procedural grounds has two components, one directed at

7

the underlying constitutional claims and one directed at the

8

district court's procedural holding."

9

district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds

Id. at 484-85.

"When the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a

11

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

12

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid

13

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

14

reason would find it debatable whether the district court was

15

correct in its procedural ruling."

16

Id. at 484.

Here, jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether

17

the Court was correct in its procedural ruling.

18

will not issue.

19

Appeals.

Petitioner may seek a COA from the Court of

20
21

Accordingly, a COA

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

22

a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice to Petitioner filing a

23

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

24

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

25
26

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

27
28
6

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3

CORINA CUNNINGHAM,
Case Number: CV09-04950 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

Corina Cunningham Reg. No. 15248-006
Satellite Prison Camp
5675 8th Street - 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
7