The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR STATEMENT FROM COURT IN RESPECT TO PETITIONER'S PLACEMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL RE-ENTRY CENTER
On January 9, 2009, Timothy Wayne Arnett, proceeding in pro per, filed a motion requesting the Court "pursuant to its supervisory powers for a statement in respect to the Court's recommendation as to the timing of defendant's placement in a Residential Re-Entry Center."
Arnett is serving a 300 month sentence for multiple counts of armed bank robbery and use of a firearm during a crime of violence pursuant to the Second Amended Judgment imposed by the Court on September 10, 2007. Arnett is currently incarcerated at Lompoc United States Penitentiary. On November 10, 2008, Arnett filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 08-7419 DDP (E), alleging:
Petitioner's request to be immediately transferred to a halfway house was denied proper statutory consideration by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Pursuant to Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th Cir.2008), a federal prisoner is entitled to consideration of his request for immediate transfer to a RRC ('halfway house'), taking into account only the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), in 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c), as amended by The Second Chance Act, and FBOP policy governing pre-release placement. Petitioner requested an immediate transfer to a halfway house to serve the remainder of his sentence as Rodriguez did. The FBOP responded and did precisely what Rodriguez forbid.
The Central District has ordered Respondent to file a response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by February 5, 2009.
18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) provides:
The Bureau of Prisons shall designate the place of the prisoner's imprisonment. The Bureau may designate any available penal or correctional facility that meets minimum standards of health and habitability established by the Bureau, whether maintained by the Federal Government or otherwise and whether within or without the judicial district in which the person was convicted, that the Bureau determines to be appropriate and suitable, considering -
(1) the resources of the facility contemplated;
(2) the nature and circumstances of the offense;
(3) the history and characteristics of the prisoner;
(4) any statement by the court that imposed ...