United States District Court, D. Arizona
Leslie A. Bowman United States Magistrate Judge
On July 27, 2015, David Allen Winkle, an inmate confined in the Federal Correctional Institution in Safford, AZ, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2241. (Doc. 1) Winkle argues a 180-day Residential Reentry Center (RRC) placement prior to his release would be insufficient. He believes an 11-month placement would be more appropriate.
Winkle filed a supplement to his petition on September 16, 2015. (Doc. 12) The respondent filed an answer on October 16, 2015. (Doc. 23) Winkle filed a combined reply and motion for summary judgment on November 9, 2015. (Doc. 26)
Magistrate Judge Bowman presides over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 22)
The petition will be denied. The Bureau of Prisons’s decision making process was proper pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).
Winkle was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York of conspiracy to distribute one hundred kilograms or more of marijuana. (Doc. 23-1, p. 2) The trial court sentenced Winkle to a 60-month term of imprisonment and 4 years of supervised release. Id. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) projects Winkle will complete his sentence on October 17, 2016, assuming he earns all available good time credits. Id., p. 5
On February 19, 2015, Winkle’s case manager, Jeffery Smith, conducted an RRC placement assessment as mandated by the Second Chance Act of 2007. (Doc. 23-1, p. 3) Smith decided a 180-day placement in an RRC would be appropriate after considering the five factors described at 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), which apply to all placement determinations. Id.; see also Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180, 1186-87 (9th Cir. 2008). The Warden approved his recommendation on April 28, 2015. Id.
On July 7, 2015, Winkle filed the pending petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. (Doc. 1) He filed a supplement on September 16, 2015. (Doc. 12)
Winkle claims (1) his Unit Team did not consider the five factors outlined in the Second Chance Act, (2) he was denied a “thorough and accurate individualized assessment of his transitional needs” as mandated by the Second Chance Act, (3) an 11-month RRC placement would improve his ability to successfully re-enter society due to his drug abuse history, and (4) an RRC placement would give him access to medical care that he cannot get at Safford and thus would reduce the likelihood of recidivism. (Doc. 1)
Winkle filed a supplement to his petition on September 16, 2015. (Doc. 12) He argues the BOP’s recent recalculation of his sentence was done in retaliation for his filing this petition. Id.
On October 16, 2015, the respondent filed an answer arguing the petition should be denied for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or, in the alternative, on the merits. (Doc. 23) Winkle filed a combined reply and motion for summary judgment on November 9, 2015. (Doc. 26)
The court finds the petition should be denied on the merits. The court does not reach the ...