James v. United States of America

Filing 72

ORDER denying 66 Petitioner's Motion for an order recommending the Bureau of Prisons transfer him to the Federal Detention Center outside Seattle, WA until the court rules on his habeas petition, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD, mailed copy of order to petitioner)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

MALEEK JAMES,

11
12
13
14

CASE NO. C12-1917-MJP
Petitioner,

ORDER ON MOTION FOR A
COURT ORDER

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

15
16

Petitioner Maleek James moves for an order recommending the Bureau of Prisons

17 transfer him to the Federal Detention Center outside Seattle, Washington, until the Court rules on
18 his habeas petition. (Dkt. No. 66.) Having reviewed the motion and related record, the Court
19 DENIES the motion for the following reasons:
20

First, Mr. James moves for relief under Criminal Rule 38. That rule authorizes a district

21 court to stay a sentence, pending an appeal. By its plain language, the Court’s authority is
22 limited to sentences on appeal. In contrast, Mr. James already appealed his case to the Ninth
23 Circuit and the conviction affirmed. Consequently, as this is a habeas petition, the Court lacks
24 authority under Criminal Rule 38.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER- 1

1

Second, the Court lacks authority to determine where Mr. James serves his sentence.

2 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(1), Congress delegated the duty to manage and regulate all
3 federal correctional and penal institutions to the BOP. For those federal prisoners committed to
4 the BOP’s custody, it has exclusive jurisdiction to designate their place of imprisonment. 18
5 U.S.C. § 3621(a),(b). And this Court lacks jurisdiction to review “any determination, decision,
6 or order” made by the BOP pursuant to 18 U.S.C §§ 3621-24. Specifically, courts lack subject7 matter jurisdiction to review individual transfer decisions, see 18 U.S.C. § 3625, and such
8 transfers do not implicate any liberty interest protected by the Due Process clause. Meachum v.
9 Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976). Consequently, the Court lacks any jurisdiction to order where
10 Mr. James is held. Moreover, BOP, and not this Court, is in the best position to evaluate the
11 security risks posed by Mr. James and make an appropriate placement.
12

The motion is DENIED. The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all

13 counsel.
14

Dated this 9th day of December, 2013.

A

15
16

Marsha J. Pechman
Chief United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER- 2