GREENE v. LONGLEY
Filing
16
OPINION AND ORDER that 4 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by GERMAINE GREENE is DENIED. The Clerk of Courts is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Susan Paradise Baxter on 9/6/11. (lrw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GERMAINE GREENE,
Petitioner,
v.
ARCHIE LONGLEY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 11-109 Erie
Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter
OPINION AND ORDER1
Presently before the Court is Germaine Greene's petition for a writ of habeas corpus [ECF No.
4], which he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He challenges the length of his placement in a
Residential Re-Entry Center ("RRC"). Specifically, he contends that by concluding that he will receive
only 30 days of placement in an RRC, the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has abused its discretion under
18 U.S.C. § 3624(c), as amended by the Second Chance Act of 2007 (the "SCA"), PL 110-199 (effective
on April 9, 2008). He also contends that the RRC placement determination was made in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 17541.
I.
A.
Relevant Statutory/Regulatory/Policy Background
Three statutes are relevant to this case: 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b); 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c); and 42 U.S.C.
§ 17541. The BOP has the authority to designate the places at which an inmate shall serve his sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). In making its designation decision, the statute requires that the BOP
consider: (1) the resources of the facility contemplated; (2) the nature and circumstances of the offense;
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have voluntarily consented to have a United States
Magistrate Judge conduct proceedings in this case, including entry of a final judgment.
1
(3) the history and characteristics of the prisoner; (4) any statement by the court that imposed the
sentence concerning the purposes for which the sentence to imprisonment was determined to be
warranted, or recommending a type of penal or correctional facility as appropriate; and, (5) any pertinent
policy statement by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(1)-(5).
Section 3624(c) of 18 U.S.C. describes the BOP's obligation to prepare inmates for community
reentry by, inter alia, designating them to an RRC (formerly known as halfway houses) at the end of the
term of imprisonment. Prior to April 9, 2008, that statute capped RRC placement for pre-release
purposes to a maximum of six months. The SCA amended § 3624 to allow for a maximum of twelve
months of pre-release RRC placement. It now reads, in relevant part:
(c)
Prelease custody. -(1) In general. -- The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent
practicable, ensure that a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment spends a
portion of the final months of that term (not to exceed 12 months), under
conditions that will afford that prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and
prepare for the re-entry of that prisoner into the community. Such conditions may
include a community corrections facility.
--(4) No limitations. -- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit or
restrict the authority of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons under section
3621.
18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1) & (4) (as amended by the SCA) (emphasis added).
Section 3624(c) has always provided the BOP with the discretion to determine whether and how
long an inmate is to be pre-released to an RRC. The BOP retains this discretion under the SCA,
provided such pre-release confinement is practicable and the BOP considers § 3621(b)'s factors. The
SCA does not mandate a particular method or procedure that the BOP must follow when making RRC
referrals, as long as the criteria set forth at § 3621(b) are considered.
2
The BOP issued Program Statement ("P.S.") 7310.04, Community Corrections Center (CCC)
Utilization and Transfer Procedure, on December 16, 1998, in order to provide guidelines to staff
regarding the effective use of RRCs and how to make pre-release custody decisions. It advises, in
relevant part, that:
Inmates in the following categories shall not ordinarily participate in [RRC] programs:
a.
f.
i.
Inmates who are assigned a "Sex Offender" Public Safety Factor.
--Inmates with unresolved pending charges, or detainers, which will likely lead to
arrest, conviction, or confinement;
--Inmates who pose a significant threat to the community. These are inmates whose
current offense or behavioral history suggests a substantial or continuing threat to
the community.
P.S. 7310.04 at 10-11.
Section 17541 of 42 U.S.C., also created by the SCA, provides, inter alia, that "[the] Attorney
General, in coordination with the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, shall, subject to the availability of
appropriations, conduct the following activities to establish a Federal prisoner reentry initiative:"
(1)
The establishment of a Federal prisoner reentry strategy to help prepare prisoners
for release and successful reintegration into the community, including, at a
minimum, that the Bureau of Prisons—
--(G)
provide incentives for prisoner participation in skills development programs.
(2)
Incentives for a prisoner who participates in reentry and skills development
programs which may, at the discretion of the Director, include–
(A)
the maximum allowable period in a community confinement facility; and
(B)
such other incentives as the Director considers appropriate (not including a
reduction of the term of imprisonment).
(Emphasis added).
On October 21, 2008, the BOP issued revisions to subpart B of 28 C.F.R. part 570 as an interim
final rule in order to conform its regulations with the requirements of the SCA. The rules provide that
3
"[i]nmates may be designated to community confinement [RRCs] as a condition of pre-release custody
and programming during the final months of the inmate's imprisonment, not to exceed twelve months[,]"
28 C.F.R. § 570.21 (emphasis added), and that such consideration will be "consistent with 18 U.S.C.
section 3621(b), determined on an individual basis, and of sufficient duration to provide the greatest
likelihood of successful reintegration into the community, within the time-frames set forth in this part."
Id. § 570.22.
In addition, since the enactment of the SCA, the BOP has disseminated a series of guidance
memorandum to provide staff with revised policies and instructions regarding RRC placements, and
which supplements that which is contained in P.S. 7310.04 (which was issued prior to the SCA). At the
present time, and at the time the decisions at issue in this case where made, the applicable guidance
memorandum is the one issued on June 24, 2010. (Resp's Ex. 1h, ECF 10-1 at 35-45). The Guidance
Memorandum advises that the primary goal of RRC placement is to reduce recidivism. It explains that
RRC resources are limited and must focus on those inmates most likely to benefit from RRCs in terms
of anticipated recidivism reduction. It states: "Our strategy is to focus on inmates who are at higher risk
of recidivating and who have established a record of programming during incarceration, so that
prerelease RRC placement will be as productive and successful as possible." (Id. at 36).
The Guidance Memorandum also instructs that RRC placement determinations are to be made on
an individualized basis using the criteria set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). (Id. at 37). It discontinues an
earlier requirement that placements of six months or over be approved by the Regional Director. (Id.)
The Guidance Memorandum instructs:
RRC placement, in and of itself, is not a reward for good institutional behavior, nor is it
an early release program or a substitute for the furlough program. RRC placement and
length of placement decisions cannot be reduced solely to a classification score or any
other type of arbitrary categorization. While staff assessment and analysis of tools such
as the Custody Classification Form (BP-338) and the Inmate Skills Development (ISD)
4
Plan are helpful in establishing broad-based groupings, staff must continue to exercise
their professional judgment when making individual inmate RRC placement decisions
and be prepared to justify those decisions.
(Id. at 39). It then sets forth guidelines to determine the length of RRC placement. (Id. at 39-41). It
concludes by noting that longer RRC placements should be considered for inmates who have
"[d]emonstrated successful participation in or completion of programming opportunities[.]" (ECF No.
10-1 at 41).
This is the statutory, regulatory, and policy schemes under which the BOP made the RRC
placement decisions at issue in this case.
B.
Relevant Factual Background
On June 25, 2007, Greene was sentenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California to 78 months of imprisonment, with a five year term of supervised release to follow, for
Transportation of a Minor with Intent That the Minor Engage in Prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2423(A). His current projected release date is October 19, 2011, assuming he receives all good
conduct time available. He is scheduled to be transferred to an RRC on September 20, 2011.
On or around January 26, 2011, Greene's Unit Team at FCI McKean reviewed him for RRC
placement. (Resp's Ex. 2d, ECF No. 10-2 at 20-22). There is no evidence that this review was not
conducted in accordance with the BOP's regulations and policies, which instruct that each inmate be
individually assessed under the five factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). See 28 C.F.R. § 570.22.
(See also Resp's Ex. 2, ECF No. 10-2 at 1-9, 6/28/11 Decl. of Derrick Mebane, ¶¶ 6, 13; Resp's Ex. 1h,
ECF No. 10-1 at 35-41). Greene was advised that because he was assigned a "sex offender" public
safety factor, had unresolved pending charges or detainers, and, "pose[d] a significant threat to the
5
community," he was deemed to be inappropriate for RRC placement. (Resp's Ex. 2d, ECF No. 10-2 at
21). In the "Comment" section, it was explained:
Inmate Greene was convicted of Transportation of a Minor With Intent to Engage Minor
in Prostitution. Inmate Green was responsible for transporting a 14 year old female from
New York to California for the purpose of engaging her in prostitution.
Additionally, inmate Greene has outstanding warrants in California and Florida. These
warrants involve prostitution charges as well. Both States have indicated they will not
extradite inmate Greene, but the charges remain active.
Finally, inmate Greene has received two institution misconduct reports within the past
year. On August 11, 2010, he was found guilty of Possession of a Hazardous Tool, code
108, and Assaulting Without Serious Injury, code 224. He was found to be in possession
of a cell phone and when confronted by the officer, inmate Greene ran into the officer in
an attempt to avoid apprehension. On December 1, 2010, inmate Greene was found
guilty of Phone Abuse, Non-Criminal, code 297. While on telephone restriction, inmate
Greene used another inmate's PAC number to gain access to the telephone system.
(Id. at 22). The Acting Warden at the time, Scott Finley, approved the Unit Team's recommendation.
(Id.)
Sometime not long thereafter, the outstanding charges in California and Florida were dismissed
and Greene was reconsidered for RRC placement. An RRC Re-Consideration form dated April 11,
2011, indicated that all pertinent criteria under § 3621(b) had been reviewed and he would receive an
RRC placement of 30 days. (Resp's Ex. 2e, ECF No. 10-2 at 23-25). In the "Comments" section, it was
written: "Per Warden – See attached email from [Assistant Case Management Coordinator, Ann
Miller]." (Id. at 24). The attachment shows that on that same date, Miller had sent the Warden, Archie
Longley, an email in which she wrote:
What is your opinion on this? The inmate is badgering for RRC placement. While Scott
Finley was acting warden he signed an exclusion memo based upon the following:
[Greene] had pending charges in Florida (which have since been cleared up), in the last
year he has had a 297 phone abuse, 108 possession of a cell phone at [FCI] Dix, and 224
Assault (he assaulted the officer when the officer found the cell phone). Additionally, his
current offense involved him transporting a 14 [year old] girl from Maryland to
California and [he] posted nude pictures of her on the internet to advertise the prostitution
6
service. He had a prostitution charge in '04 also. I agree with the exclusion based upon
the discipline information and the sex offense involving a minor.
Warden Longley responded: "Go with 30 days." (Id.)
On April 20, 2011, after his attempts at informal resolution were unsuccessful (see Pet's Ex. A,
ECF No. 4-1 at 1), Greene filed an Inmate Request in which he challenged the 30-day RRC placement
decision. He also asserted that he should have been "considered separately for an award incentive for
my participation in the BOP's skills development program, which is required by 42 U.S.C. § 17541."
(Resp's Ex. 1b, ECF No. 10-1 at 9). Warden Longley denied his request on May 9, 2011. (Id. at 10).
On June 9, 2011, the Regional Director denied Greene's appeal of the Warden's decision. He set
forth the criteria used to determine RRC placement, and then explained:
Your Unit Team considered your individual situation, programming and transitional
needs pursuant to the above criteria. Although initially denied RRC recommendation,
your case was reconsidered when you were able to clear up outstanding charges in
Florida. Based on an RRC reconsideration conducted on April 11, 2011, you were
recommended for a 30-day RRC placement. You have been accepted for placement at
Community First Services on September 20, 2011. This period was determined to be
sufficient to provide you the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the
community. Staff are afforded broad discretion in reaching this decision and you present
no evidence this discretion was abused. Accordingly, your appeal is denied.
(Id. at 12).2
In the meantime, in May of 2011, Greene filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with this
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This Court may only extend the writ to him if he demonstrates that
"[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States[.]" 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3). Greene contends that the BOP has abused its discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) by
determining that he shall receive only 30 days of RRC placement. He also contends that the RRC
2
It does not appear from the record before the Court that Greene appealed the Regional Director's decision to the Central
Office, which is the final level of administrative review. He asserts that he should be excused from the requirement of
exhausting his administrative remedies because of the time constraints of this case. Because Respondent does not contest
that assertion, the Court will not address whether Greene was required to exhaust his administrative remedies.
7
placement determination was made in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 17541. Specifically, he contends that his
evaluation for RRC placement should have been done twice: once under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c), and once
under 42 U.S.C. § 17541, during which time he should have received RRC placement time as an award
for participating in skills programming.
Respondent filed an Answer to the petition on July 12, 2011. (ECF No. 10). Petitioner filed a
Traverse (ECF No. 13), to which Respondent filed a Surreply (ECF No. 15). The issues in this case
have been fully briefed and are now ripe for review.
C.
Discussion
Greene has no substantive right to any particular length of time in an RRC under § 3624(c). See
Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 244-51 (3d Cir. 2005) (in exercising its discretion
to make RRC placement decisions, the BOP must consider the factors set forth in §3621(b); "[h]owever,
that the BOP may assign a prisoner to [an RRC] does not mean that it must."). See also Marshall v.
Lansing, 839 F.2d 933, 949-50 (3d Cir. 1988) (the discretionary decision made by the Parole
Commission where to place an individual within the range specified by the appropriate guideline was
not reviewable). This Court may only evaluate the BOP's decision to determine if it abused its
discretion by not adhering to the requirements of the applicable statutes. Woodall, 432 F.3d at 244-49
(the BOP may not categorically remove its ability to consider the explicit factors set forth by Congress
in § 3621(b) for making placement and transfer determinations); Marshall, 839 F.2d at 942-51 (district
court's authority to ensure that an agency adheres to the law does not permit it to displace the agency's
decisionmaking process; the role of the court is limited to ensuring that the agency follows the law and
its regulations (which have the force of law)).
8
Greene contends that the BOP abused its discretion in reaching its decision regarding the length
of his RRC placement. Such allegations are rarely successful. See Bridge v. United States Parole
Commission, 981 F.2d 97 (3d Cir. 1992) (the district court could review the decisions of the Parole
Commission for abuse of discretion, but if the agency's decision had evidentiary support the district
court could not disturb it). Review of the exhibits provided by each party to this case shows that there is
some factual support for the BOP's decision. Greene's specific arguments concerning why he should
receive a lengthier transfer to an RRC were considered by the BOP but found not to justify a longer
amount of time in an RRC. He disagrees with the conclusion that the BOP reached, but there is no
evidence that it failed to evaluate his RRC placement in accordance with the criteria set forth in
§ 3621(b), as required by § 3624(c). (See Resp's Ex. 2, ECF No. 10-2 at 1-9, 6/28/11 Decl. of Derrick
Mebane, ¶¶ 11-15; see also Resp's Ex. 2d, ECF No. 10-2 at 20-22; Resp's Ex. 2d, ECF No. 23-25).
Greene argues that the April 11, 2011, email exchange between Warden Longley and Assistant
CMC Miller demonstrates that the Warden made a unilateral decision without considering § 3621(b)'s
factors when he determined that Greene would receive a 30-day RRC placement. The Court rejects this
argument. The SCA does not mandate a particular method or procedure that the BOP must follow when
making RRC referrals, as long as the criteria set forth at § 3621(b) are considered. Moreover, as
Respondent points out, the SCA does not require prisons and Unit Teams to list every factor considered
or to rehash relevant factors that had been considered in previous RRC reviews. Thus, that the Warden
may have suggested the 30-day referral time after the matter with Greene's outstanding criminal charges
had been resolved does not violate the applicable statutes or amount to an abuse of discretion.
Moreover, the Warden's recommendation was brought to the attention of Unit Manager Derrick
Mebane, who explains:
9
If I, or any member of the Unit Team, felt that a 30 day RRC placement was insufficient,
the Unit Team could have recommended inmate Greene for a longer RRC placement. In
accordance with the practice at FCI McKean, the Unit Team's recommendation would be
subject to review and approval by the Inmate Systems Manager, the Case Management
Coordinator, an Associate Warden and the Warden.
In this case, after receipt of the Warden's 30 day RRC placement
recommendation, neither I nor any member of inmate Greene's Unit Team believed a
longer RRC placement would be appropriate, based upon any of the five § 3621(b)
factors or inmate Greene's ISD or Drug Abuse Treatment Program participation.
(Resp's Ex. 3, ECF No. 15-1 at 3-4, 8/22/11 Decl. of Derrick Mebane).
Perhaps recognizing the difficulty in successfully attacking the BOP's discretionary decision,
Greene also contends that, in addition to the RRC evaluation he had under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) (which is
the subject of the above discussion), the SCA also requires that he have a separate and distinct
evaluation under 42 U.S.C. § 17541 to determine if he has earned up to a 12-month RRC placement as
an incentive award for his participation in various skills development programs. Because he did not
have a separate and distinct evaluation under § 17541, Greene argues, the BOP violated the statute.
The Court rejects Greene's contention that the SCA requires that two separate considerations be
conducted for each inmate seeking RRC placement. The RRC placement provision of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3624(c) expressly requires the BOP to make an individualized evaluation of each inmate against the
five factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). Participation in prison programming is one of many factors
included in the history and characteristics of the inmate (18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(3)). (See also Resp's
Ex. 1h (6/24/10 Guidance Memorandum), ECF No. 10-1 at 40 ("assess the inmates history of successful
completion of, or participation in, available programming opportunities during incarceration[.]"; id. at
41 "Longer RRC placements should be considered for inmates whose following factors are high …
Demonstrated successful participation in or completion of programming opportunities[.]"). The
evaluation of an inmate's participation in prison programming in this context allows BOP staff to weigh
10
all of the relevant factors affecting an inmate's reintegration into the community when making the RRC
placement decision. As Respondent persuasively argues, it makes little sense for Unit Teams to make an
RRC placement recommendation under § 3624(c), which takes all relevant factors under § 3621(b) into
consideration, only to have the RRC recommendation trumped by a separate incentives award provision.
Moreover, although 42 U.S.C. § 17541 suggests maximum RRC placement as an incentive, it does not
require the BOP to make it an incentive. Indeed, § 17541 gives the BOP wide discretion to fashion
incentives for inmates who complete inmate skills development programs.3
In support of his position, Greene relies upon Krueger, v. Martinez, 665 F.Supp.2d 477 (M.D.Pa.
2009). In that case, the petitioner challenged the recommendation that he serve the only last five to six
months at an RRC. He argued, inter alia, that the BOP violated 42 U.S.C. § 17541 by refusing to
recommend him for a 12-month RRC placement as an incentive award for his extensive participation in
skills development programs. The court interpreted 42 U.S.C. § 17541 as creating an RRC placement
incentive that was separate and distinct from the RRC placement procedures provided under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3624(c):
…[I]t is clear to this Court that Congress intended that the BOP create incentives for a
prisoner's participation in skills development program, see 42 U.S.C. § 17541(a)(1)(G),
and that one of those incentives may be a 12-month placement in an RRC facility. See
id. § 17541(a)(2)(A). Moreover this consideration of incentives was clearly intended to
be separate and distinct from the consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) otherwise it
would have been superfluous for Congress to have created an entirely distinct statutory
framework. Because it is unclear whether the BOP ever separately considered a full RRC
placement as an incentive under § 17541(a)(1)(B) for [petitioner's] skills development
3
Recently, the Third Circuit Court affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey's decision in
Richardson v. Director for the Bureau of Prisons, No. 10-4939, 2011 WL 809869 (D.N.J. Feb. 28, 2011), in which it had
denied a petitioner's mandamus action wherein the petitioner had contended, similar to Greene, that § 17541(a)(1)(G)
mandated that he receive incentives for participating in skills development programs. The Third Circuit Court held:
"Although the [SCA] … requires the Attorney General and the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to establish incentives for
prisoner participating in skills development programs, the statute does not require that any particular incentives be given[.]"
Richardson v. Director for Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 11-1663, 2011 WL 2559423, *1 (3d Cir. June 29, 2011).
11
and educational achievements, the court will order Respondent to consider [petitioner], in
good faith, for a full 12- month RRC placement as an incentive under § 17541 separately
from its determination under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c).
Krueger, 665 F.Supp.2d at 486.
This Court is not bound by the decision in Krueger, and respectfully finds its analysis
unconvincing. The Court agrees with the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of California in
Crim v. Benov, No. 1:10-cv-1600, 2011 WL 1636867 (E.D. Ca. Apr. 29, 2011),4 appeal docketed No.
11-16458 (9th Cir. June 9, 2011), which recently expressly rejected Krueger's "interpretation of § 17541
as creating a twelve month placement separate from 18 U.S.C. § 3624." Crim, No. 1:10-cv-1600, 2011
WL 1636867 at *8. In that case, the court observed:
18 U.S.C. 3624(c) provides that the BOP may place an inmate in RRC for a period of up
to twelve months. However, § 3624(c)(4) also clarifies that nothing in § 3624 "shall be
construed to limit or restrict the authority of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons under
§ 3621." 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(4). 42 U.S.C. § 17541(a)(2)(A) provides that the BOP
must provide incentives "for a prisoner who participates in reentry and skills
development programs which may, at the discretion of the Director, include ... (A) the
maximum allowable period in a community confinement facility...." 42 U.S.C.
§ 17541(a)(2)(A) (Emphasis supplied). Nothing in the plain meaning of these two
provisions suggests that by enacting § 17541(a)(2)(A), Congress was attempting to create
a separate twelve-month RRC placement program distinct from the one already provided
in § 3624(c)(4). Indeed, such a construction of these two provisions makes no sense: If
the BOP retains the statutory discretion to individually determine the duration of an
inmate's RRC placement up to a maximum of twelve months, it is illogical for Congress
to then require the BOP to also offer a separate twelve month RRC placement as an
incentive to the inmate's completion of the skills development programs that, themselves,
are to be considered as factors in making an individualized assessment regarding to the
duration of the inmate's RRC placement. It is circular logic that would lead to an absurd
result — i.e., that the BOP has to offer a skills development plan that will guarantee that
an inmate can receive a 12–month RRC placement — and, as such, has absolutely no
support in the plain meaning of the two statutes. The Court declines to adopt such a
flawed construction.
Id. at *11.
4
The Crim decision cited herein is the Amended Findings and Recommendation issued on April 29, 2011, by the Magistrate
Judge. It was adopted in full by the District Court on May 27, 2011. See ECF No. 18 in Crim v. Benov, 1:10-cv-01600
(E.D. Ca. May 27, 2011).
12
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court rejects Greene's contention that the BOP has abused
its discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c), or has failed to properly implement the SCA because he did not
receive a separate RRC review under 42 U.S.C. § 17541.
II.
For the forgoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. An appropriate Order
follows.
/s/ Susan Paradise Baxter
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: September 6, 2011
13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GERMAINE GREENE,
Petitioner,
v.
ARCHIE LONGLEY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 11-109 Erie
Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter
ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of September, 2011;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. The Clerk
of Courts is directed to close this case.
/s/ Susan Paradise Baxter
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?