Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Yates v. Benov

October 22, 2010

PAUL EDWARD YATES, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL L. BENOV, WARDEN RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [Doc. 1]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 13, 2010. Petitioner is currently in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Petitioner contends that prison officials have failed to consider him for the full 12-month placement in a Residential Re-Entry Center (RRC) as an incentive for participation in the skills development program. For the reasons explained below, the petition must be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable federal claim.

DISCUSSION

Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Writ of habeas corpus relief is available if a federal prisoner can show he is "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).

Petitioner claims the prison officials failed to consider the length of Petitioner's placement in the RRC as an incentive for participating in the skills development program. He claims prison staff failed to inform him how much time he would receive for participation in the program.

Section 231 of the Second Chance Act (SCA) provides for incentives for prisoner participation in skills development programs. It specifically states:

(2) Incentives for a prisoner who participates in re-entry 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).

The Second Change Act, PL 110-199, April 9, 2008, 122 Stat 657 (2007).

Although the SCA includes an incentive for the maximum allowable period for participation in a skills development program, it is at the discretion of the officials. Thus, there is no requirement that prison officials grant the maximum 12-month placement in an RRC simply because Petitioner has participation in the skills development program, nor is there a requirement that Petitioner be advised how much time will be granted for participation in such program.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.