Opinion
Case No. 14-20063-JAR
05-09-2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DACCO S. MUTH, Defendant.
ORDER
On January 22, 2015, the Court sentenced Defendant Dacco Muth to 60 months' imprisonment (Doc. 22). Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Direct Placement into a Residential Re-entry Center ("RRC") pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. 3624 (Doc. 27). Defendant states that he is entitled to placement in an RRC for the last nine to twelve months of his sentence, and requests this Court order the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to take immediate action.
Judicial review of the terms of Defendant's incarceration is not appropriate at this time. Section 3624(c)(1), cited by Defendant as authority for this motion, is a substantive provision that governs the release of prisoners, and does not provide any authority for this Court to review placement or release decisions made by the BOP. Instead, the Attorney General, through the BOP, is responsible for imprisoning federal offenders. Calculation of a federal prisoner's sentence may be reviewed by a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. However, judicial review is only appropriate after the prisoner has exhausted all of his or her administrative remedies with the BOP. Here, there is no indication that Defendant has sought administrative relief by presenting to the Attorney General his request for direct placement into an RRC, nor has he brought a habeas action under § 2241. Therefore, Defendant's motion is denied.
See United States v. Moten, No. 03-40054-SAC, 2007 WL 2155653, at *1 (D. Kan. July 26, 2007).
See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 336-38 (1992).
Romandine v. United States, 206 F.3d 731, 736 (7th Cir. 2000).
Id.; Thomason v. Guzik, 226 F.3d 642 (5th Cir. 2000). --------
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendant's Motion for Direct Placement into an RRC (Doc. 27) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 9, 2017
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE