JACOBS v. ORTIZ

Filing 18

OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 9/26/2017. (dmr)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

NATHAN E. JACOBS,
Petitioner,
v.

WARDEN ORTIZ,
Respondent.

Civ. Action No. 16-4984 (RMB)

OPINION

BUMB, District Judge
Petitioner, Nathan E. Jacobs (“Jacobs”), an inmate at FCI
Fort Dix, in Fort Dix, New Jersey, filed a petition for writ of
habeas

corpus

under

(Pet., ECF No. 1.)

28

U.S.C.

§

2241,

on

August

15,

2016.

He seeks an order directing the BOP, in good

faith, to consider the five factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §
3621(b),

and

grant

him

the

Residential Reentry Center.

maximum

amount

of

time

(Pet., ECF No. 1 at 18.)1

in

a
He

further seeks to participate in the Life Connections Program.
(Ex Parte Mot. to Supp. Supporting Second Chance Act of 2007,
ECF No. 6 at 3.)
1

Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Woodall v.
Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 243-44 (3d Cir. 2005)
(finding 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is proper vehicle to challenge BOP’s
Residential Reentry Center placement determination).

Respondents
habeas relief.

filed

an

Answer

to

(Answer, ECF No. 14.)

the

petition,

opposing

Respondents contend the

issues presented in the petition are not ripe for review, and
Jacobs failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
2.)

(Id. at

Jacobs argues exhaustion is futile and should be excused.

(Pet., ECF No. 1 at 9-16.)
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts, applicable to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
through Rule 1, scope of the rules, provides, in relevant part:
The
judge
must
promptly
examine
[the
petition].
If it plainly appears from the
petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
district court, the judge must dismiss the
petition and direct the clerk to notify the
petitioner.
If
the
petition
is
not
dismissed,
the
judge
must
order
the
respondent to file an answer, motion, or
other response within a fixed time, or to
take other action the judge may order.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses the
petition.
I.

BACKGROUND
Jacobs

is

presently

serving

a

252-month

sentence

for

Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(G)(1), 924(E).

(SENTRY Public Information Inmate

Data, Decl. of Tara Moran (“Moran Decl.”), Attach. 1, ECF No.
14-1

at

5.)

Assuming

he

receives

all

good

conduct

time

available, Jacobs is scheduled for release on October 3, 2020.
2

(Id.)

He wishes to participate in the Life Connections Program,

and to spend the maximum amount of time in a Residential Reentry
Center (“RRC”).
II.

(Pet., ECF No. 1.)

DISCUSSION
A.

RRC Placement Decisions

An inmate’s Unit Team makes recommendations for placement
in an RRC.

(Decl. of Vannapha Macavoy (“Macavoy Decl.”), ECF

No. 1-2, ¶3.) Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) policy, requires
an inmate’s Unit Team to make a recommendation for that inmate’s
placement in a Residential Reentry Center between seventeen and
nineteen months prior to the inmate’s release date.

(Apr. 14,

2008 BOP Memorandum, Macavoy Decl., Ex. 1, ECF No. 14-2 at 7.)
An inmate can be placed in a Residential Reentry Center for a
maximum of twelve months.
B.

(Id. at 6.)

Life Connections Program Participation

The Life Connections Program is offered at specific low,
medium and high security institutions, and assists inmates in
reentry

by

fostering

(Macavoy

Decl.

¶5;

Ex.

personal
2,

ECF

growth
No.

14-2

and
at

responsibility.
15-23.)

It

is

separate from RRC placement, and does not offer an early-release
incentive for participation. (Macavoy Decl. ¶5.)

Inmates are

not eligible for participation in this program until they are
between twenty-four and thirty-six months from release.
C.

Ripeness Doctrine
3

(Id.)

“Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power
of

the

United

States

‘Controversies.’”

to

the

resolution

of

‘Cases’

and

Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation,

Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 597 (2007).

The doctrine of ripeness comes

from the case or controversy requirement of Article III.

Susan

B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S.Ct. 2334, 2341 n. 5 (2014).
“A dispute is not ripe for judicial determination ‘if it rests
upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated,
or indeed may not occur at all.’”

Wyatt, Virgin Islands, Inc.

v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands, 385 F.3d 801, 806 (3d Cir. 2004)
(quoting Doe v. County of Centre, PA, 242 F.3d 437, 453 (3d Cir.
2001)

(quoting

Texas

v.

United

States,

523

U.S.

296,

300

(1998)).
D.

Analysis

Jacobs

has

not

yet

been

denied

maximum

RRC

placement

because BOP policy provides that consideration for RRC placement
occur 17 to 19 months before the inmate’s projected release
date.

Jacobs’s

Therefore,

the

projected
BOP

will

release
consider

date
his

is
RRC

October

3,

placement

2020.

request

sometime between March 3, 2019 and May 3, 2019.

Jacobs is

complaining of something that has not yet occurred.

Thus, the

issue is not ripe.

See Porter-Bey v. B.A. Bledsoe, 456 F. App’x

109, 111 (3d Cir. 2012) (affirming denial of an inmate’s habeas

4

petition because at the time the inmate filed the petition, he
had not yet received a final RRC placement decision.)
The same is true of Jacobs’s claim that he is wrongfully
denied participation in the Life Connections Program.

The BOP

considers an inmate’s eligibility to participate in this program
between

twenty-four

and

thirty-six

months

from

release.

Jacobs’s projected release date is October 3, 2020, making him
eligible

for

consideration

to

participate

in

the

Life

Connections Program between October 3, 2017 and October 3, 2018.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court dismisses the
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
because the claims are not ripe.
An appropriate Order follows.
Dated:

September 26, 2017
s/Renée Marie Bumb
Renée Marie Bumb
United States District Judge

5