Husein v. USA

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Francisco Quintana, Warden of the Federal Medical Center is SUBSTITUTED as respondent. 2. Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus 1 is DENIED. 3. Action is DISMISSED AND STRICKEN from docket. 4. Judgment to be entered. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 5/15/2018.(GLD)cc: Pro Se Petitioner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
HABIB HUSEIN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
V.
FRANCISCO QUINTANA, Warden,
Respondent.
***

***

***

Civil No. 5: 18-46-JMH

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

***

Proceeding without counsel, Petitioner Habib Husein has
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 seeking a Court order that he be placed in a Residential
Reentry Center (“RRC”) community correction home detention program
[R. 1].1
The

Court

petitions.

conducts

an

initial

review

of

habeas

corpus

28 U.S.C. § 2243; Alexander v. Northern Bureau of

Prisons, 419 F. App’x 544, 545 (6th Cir. 2011).

A petition will

be denied “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.”

Rule 4

of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts (applicable to § 2241 petitions pursuant to Rule 1(b)).

1

Husein has named the United States of America as the respondent
in this proceeding, but the correct respondent is the warden of
the facility where the petitioner is confined. Rumsfeld v. Padilla,
542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004).
The Court will therefore substitute
Francisco Quintana, Warden of the Federal Medical CenterLexington, as the respondent.

In his petition, Husein alleges in broad, conclusory terms
that he meets the requirements for pre-release placement on home
detention.

[R. 1].

However, Husein makes no effort to provide

the necessary factual support for his claims, nor does he make any
legal argument as to why such facts, if proven, would entitle him
to relief.

At most, he cites the factors to be considered by the

BOP when making RRC placement decisions and then concludes, with
no explanation, that he meets these requirements.

The Court has

an obligation to liberally construe pleadings filed by a person
proceeding without counsel, but it has no authority to create
arguments or claims that he or she has not made.

Coleman v.

Shoney’s, Inc., 79 F. App’x 155, 157 (6th Cir. 2003) (“Pro se
parties must still brief the issues advanced with some effort at
developed argumentation.”);

Superior Kitchen Designs, Inc. v.

Valspar Indus. (U.S.A.), Inc., 263 F. Supp. 2d 140, 148 (D. Mass.
2003) (“While the allegations of the complaint are construed
favorably to the plaintiff, the court will not read causes of
action into the complaint which are not alleged.”).
Moreover, although RRC placement and home confinement are
helpful resources for readjustment to society, a federal prisoner
does not have a constitutionally protected right to serve the final
twelve

months

of

his

sentence

in

either

a

RRC

or

in

home

confinement. Although the Second Chance Act, Pub.L. No. 110–199,
122 Stat. 657 (Apr. 9, 2008), amended 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) to
2 

authorize the BOP to consider placing an inmate in an RRC or in
home confinement for up to twelve-months, it does not automatically
entitle, or guarantee, any prisoner such placement for twelve
months. See Demis v. Sniezek, 558 F.3d 508, 514 (6th Cir. 2009);
Boals v. Quintana, No. CV 5:15-335-JMH, 2015 WL 8665404, at *2
(E.D. Ky. Dec. 11, 2015); Harris v. Hickey, No. 10-CV-135-JMH,
2010 WL 1959379, at *3 (E.D. Ky. May 17, 2010).

Indeed, “the

decision to place an inmate in pre-release community confinement
and/or home confinement is discretionary and will be “determined
on an individual basis” according to the factors in 18 U.S.C. §
3621(b). Boals, 2015 WL 8665404 at 2 (citing McIntosh v. Hickey,
No. 10-CV-126-JMH, 2010 WL 1959308, at *3 (E.D. Ky., May 17,
2010)).
Finally, before a prisoner may seek habeas relief under
Section 2241, he must first exhaust his administrative remedies
within

the

Bureau

of

Prisons.

Fazzini

v.

Northeast

Correctional Center, 473 F.3d 229, 231 (6th Cir. 2006).

Ohio
Here,

Husein fails to indicate whether he has even presented his request
for RRC or home detention placement to the BOP.

Even if he had

made such a request to the BOP, the BOP’s determinations regarding
halfway house placement are expressly insulated from judicial
review under the APA.

28 U.S.C. § 3625 (“The provisions of

sections 554 and 555 and 701 through 706 of title 5, United States
Code, do not apply to the making of any determination, decision,
3 

or order under this subchapter.”).

Cf. Woodard v. Quintana, No.

5:15-307-KKC, 2015 WL 7185478, at *5-6 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 13, 2015).
For each of the foregoing reasons, Husein’s petition must be
denied.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.

Francisco Quintana, Warden of the Federal Medical Center

in Lexington, Kentucky, is SUBSTITUTED as the respondent in this
proceeding.
2.

Petitioner Husein’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [R. 1] is DENIED.
3.

This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s

docket.
4.

Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this

Memorandum Opinion and Order.
This 15th day of May, 2018.

4