Bonneau v. Feather

Filing 6

ORDER: Petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction (CR 5 ) is DENIED. The briefing in this matter shall proceed in accordance with the court's expedited scheduling order (CR 3 ). However, this action shall be dismissed for lack of prosecution if the $5.00 filing fee is not received by the court within 20 days of the date of this order. Signed on February 11, 2015 by Judge Malcolm F. Marsh. (eo) Copy mailed to petitioner.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
RYAN BONNEAU,

6:15-cv-00152-KI
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
MARION FEATHER, Warden, FCI
Sheridan,
Respondent.
KING, Judge
Petitioner is in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons

(BOP)

pursuant to his conviction and revocation of supervised release in
Uni.ted States

v. Bonneau,

3:10-cr-00402-M0-1,

release date is August 6, 2015.

CR 20 & 146.

His

Petitioner currently is confined

at FCI Sheridan awaiting trial on new charges in United States v.
Bonneau,

2015.

3: 14-cr-00257-MO,

which is set for

trial on April

1

1

A detention hearing was not held in 3:14-cr-00257-MO
because petitioner is confined pursuant to the judgments of
conviction and revocation of supervised release in 3:10~cr004020-M0-1.
See CR 22 (Minutes of Proceedings).

1

ORDER

14,

In

the

instant proceeding,

petitioner seeks

his

immediate

placement in a Residential Reentry Center (RRC) on the basis that,
prior to his transfer from USP Lompoc to
scheduled to be
Center in

released to

Portland,

Oregon,

the Northwest
on

FCI

Sheridan,

Residential

February 10,

2015.

he was
Re Entry

Petitioner

alleges that his RRC placement was cancelled by Missy Kallunki, the
Manager of the Correctional Systems Department (CSD), on the basis
that he could not be released to an RRC while confined in Oregon on
a writ.
According to petitioner,

"Kallunki

consideration of an inmate for RRC,

is

not

involved in the

(but] merely facilitates the

requests that are approved and ensures, inter alia, that the inmate
leaving on the date
Petition at 4.
was

"solely

on

scheduled

is

inmate."

Habeas

Petitioner complains that this unilateral decision
the

whim

of

CSD

consider the factors of 18 U.S.C.
decision."

the correct

Manager

Kallunki

Section 3621 (b)

who

did

not

in making her

Id.

Petitioner's

Motion

for

Temporary

Restraining

Preliminary Injunction is denied on the basis that

(1)

Order

and

the court

has yet to receive from petitioner the requisite $5.00 filing fee;
(2)

petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies and

has not demonstrated that exhaustion should be waived;

(3) Bureau

of Prisons Program Statement 7310.04(10) (f) provides that inmates
who have
2 - ORDER

unresolved pending

charges

which will

likely lead to

arrest,

conviction,

or

confinement,

shall

not

participate in community correction programSi and

ordinarily

(4)

petitioner

has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable injury or
that an injunction is in the public interest given the fact that
the pending criminal charges against

ti tioner have yet to be

considered by correctional officials as part of an RRC placement
decision.

If this court were to order respondent to reconsider the

cancellation
crite

of

petitioner's

RRC

set forth in 18 U.S.C.

placement

would

7310.04 (10) (f).
Feb. 14, 2007)
Statement

be

denied

§

release
3621,

2

based

date

using

t

five

it is likely that such
on

Program

Statement

See Kurt v. Daniels, 2007 WL 593575 *3 *4

(upholding denial of RRC placement bas

(D.Or.

on Program

7310.04 (10) (f)).

Accordingly, neither a mandatory temporary restraining order,
nor a preliminary injunction is warranted.
Def. Council, Inc.,

Winter v. Natural Res.

555 U.S. 7, 20-22 (2008).
CONCLUSION

Bas

on the

regoing,

itioner's motion for a temporary

restraining order or preliminary injunction (CR 5) is DENIED.

The

briefing

the

in

this

matter

shall

proceed

court's expedited scheduling order
2

in

(CR 3).

accordance
However,

with

this action

See Sacora v. Thomas, 628 F.3d 1059, 1061 62 (9th Cir.
2010) (five factors of § 3 1 govern RRC placement de sion); 28
CFR § 570.22.

3

ORDER

shall be dismissed for lack of prosecution if the $5.00

ling fee

is not received by the court within 20 days of the date of this
order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

I( day of February, 2015.

Garr M. King
United States District Judge

3

The court notes that petitioner attached to his habeas
petition a Request for Withdrawal of Inmate's Personal Funds
indicating that he requested the BOP to send the $5.00 filing fee
to the court.
Habeas Petition (CR 1), Exh. C.

4 - ORDER