Young v. Wiley

Filing 36

ORDER. The Recommendation on Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241 (Docket No. 2) 34 filed 7/8/2012, is APPROVED and ADOPTED. The Recommendation on Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U .S.C § 2241 (Docket No. 2) 32 filed 7/8/2010, is TERMINATEDon the docket as moot. The objections stated in the plaintiffs Objects to Magistrates Report and Recommendation 33 filed 7/27/2010, are OVERRULED. The applicants Application for a Wr it of Habeas Corpus Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2241 2 filed 3/13/2009, is DENIED. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER in favor of the respondent, Ron Wiley, Warden, and against the applicant, David Dean Young. The respondent is AWARDED his costs. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/14/2012.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 09-cv-00538-REB-MJW
DAVID DEAN YOUNG,
Applicant,
v.
RON WILEY,
Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) the applicant’s Application for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [#2]1 filed March 13, 2009; (2)
the Recommendation on Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C § 2241 (Docket No. 2) [#32] filed July 8, 2010; and (3) the Recommendation on
Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241 (Docket No.
2) [#34] filed July 8, 2010. The two recommendations are identical, except that the
second recommendation includes a notice stating the time limits within which the a party
may object to the recommendation. On July 27, 2010, the applicant filed an objection
[#33] to the first recommendation. I approve and adopt the second recommendation,
overrule the objections, deny the application, and dismiss this case.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the

1

“[#2]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

recommendation to which objections have been filed. I have considered carefully the
recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw.
Moreover, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed his pleadings
and other filings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct.
2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th
Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)). However,
I have not acted as an advocate for the plaintiff.
The recommendation is detailed and well-reasoned. Contrastingly, the plaintiff’s
objections are imponderous and without merit.
When he filed his application, the applicant, David Dean Young, was incarcerated
in a prison operated by the United States Bureau of Prisons. In his application, Young
asks to “be considered for a transfer to a CCC [community corrections center] so that
[he] can complete [his] education and prepare [himself] for a productive role in Society
upon [his] release, all within the mandate of 18 USC § 3621(b)(1)-(5). [He] respectfully
request[s] that the Court Order the Respondent demonstrate that they are seriously
considering the five criteria and that they transfer [him] to a CCC ASAP unless [he is]
ineligible under those criteria . . . .” Application [#2] filed March 13, 2009, p. 5.
Based on the record in this case, the magistrate judge concluded that the
application should be denied as moot because Young has received all of the relief to
which he is entitled under § 3621(b). In his objection [#33], Young argues that the

2

respondent has not considered properly all of the criteria listed in § 3621(b).
As the magistrate judge notes, the record reflects that the relevant criteria have
been considered in Young’s case. Young’s objection [#33] shows that he disagrees
with the manner in which the Bureau of Prisons applied the relevant criteria to Young.
Such a disagreement does not establish a violation of Young’s rights under the statute
or any other violation of federal law. I agree with the magistrate judge that Young has
received all of the relief he seeks in his application. The application is denied as moot.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation on Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241 (Docket No. 2) [#34] filed July 8, 2010, is APPROVED
and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the Recommendation on Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241 (Docket No. 2) [#32] filed July 8, 2010, is TERMINATED
on the docket as moot;
3. That the objections stated in the plaintiff’s Objects to Magistrate’s Report
and Recommendation [#33] filed July 27, 2010, are OVERRULED;
4. That the applicant’s Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant To
28 U.S.C. § 2241 [#2] filed March 13, 2009, is DENIED;
5. That this case is DISMISSED with prejudice;
6. That JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER in favor of the respondent, Ron Wiley,
Warden, and against the applicant, David Dean Young; and
7. That the respondent is AWARDED his costs, to be taxed by the clerk of the

3

court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.
Dated February 14, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

4